Protest Paddy Jackson playing at the weekend?

Sleeper12 · 10-09-2019 4:13pm

salmocab wrote: »

I also haven’t voted, mainly because it’s meaningless nothing to do with the wording of the options

But, but, but don't we have to vote & scream our outrage at the same time???

The whole concept of this thread has me in stitches everytime I think about it. OP is outraged at the bad press Paddy has gotten & the planned protests. Solution to this is to start a thread telling people who'd started to forget about poor Paddy & knew nothing about the protests, about the protests. End result: Op has now advertised the protests & stirred up the bile & hatred all over again just as people had started to forget about it. OP is not doing poor Paddy any favors at all imo :pac::pac::pac:

greencap · 10-09-2019 4:14pm

alastair wrote: »

Read the link again. The laws only apply within a prosecution. There is no presumption of innocence outside of that which applies to a defendant in a trial.

Wrong. Its at all times. As its a human right.

Sleeper12 · 10-09-2019 4:14pm

ELM327 wrote: »

Were you found innocent?

I skipped the trial & admitted my insanity. No jury verdict for me.

greencap · 10-09-2019 4:16pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I haven't voted because there isn't an option saying that he was acquitted or found not guilty. I'll be damned if I'm putting my name stating he was found innocent when he wasn't. I also believe the law has spoken & he should be left alone. It's not up to me to second guess a jury that heard all the evidence

EctHR says youre innocent til proven guilty.
He wasnt proven guilty.
Therefore he's innocent.

Cupp3r · 10-09-2019 4:16pm

He Found innocent and she was proven to be a liar in the words of Star witness (Dara Florence) move on nothing to see here.

#IDONTBELIEVEHER

Lil Sally Anne Jnr. · 10-09-2019 4:21pm

Cupp3r wrote: »

He Found innocent and she was proven to be a liar in the words of Star witness (Dara Florence) move on nothing to see here.

#IDONTBELIEVEHER

You sound like an absolute cretin. Tabloid reader?

Homelander · 10-09-2019 4:25pm

I find it absurd the people who go to lengths to point out "he wasn't found innocent". As opposed to what? What's his current status? Should people have a prefix for the rest of their lives of 'accused'? By virtue of being found not guilty, he's assumed to be, and viewed as, innocent in the eyes of the law. The law doesn't work in shades. It doesn't find being part-guilty, a bit guilty, possibly guilty. Just guilty or not. Stop being so ridiculously pedantic. It's blatantly clear what the poll choices represent.

Sleeper12 · 10-09-2019 4:31pm

greencap wrote: »

EctHR says youre innocent til proven guilty.
He wasnt proven guilty.
Therefore he's innocent.

I never said he was guilty. I 100 percent respect the jury's verdict. I'm just saying that it's impossible to be found innocent in a court. You are found guilty or not guilty. Some posters like to use terms like found innocent & she must have lied because there was no conviction or the jury had to believe she lied if they found him innocent. Court cases are more complex & are rarely black & white. Someone posted early today that most likely everyone was telling the truth. The lads thought they had consent & she thought she haden't given consent. I personally believe that this is very close to the truth.

10-09-2019 4:40pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I never said he was guilty. I 100 percent respect the jury's verdict. I'm just saying that it's impossible to be found innocent in a court. You are found guilty or not guilty. Some posters like to use terms like found innocent & she must have lied because there was no conviction or the jury had to believe she lied if they found him innocent. Court cases are more complex & are rarely black & white. Someone posted early today that most likely everyone was telling the truth. The lads thought they had consent & she thought she haden't given consent. I personally believe that this is very close to the truth.

so hes not guilty

Shefwedfan · 10-09-2019 4:42pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Law degree I don't have but I've spent time in different courts around Dublin. It can be a fascinating day out. Even the SCC can be interesting

I drive my car alot, I still would never claim to be a mechanic....or give mechanical advice

Sleeper12 · 10-09-2019 4:45pm

Homelander wrote: »

I find it absurd the people who go to lengths to point out "he wasn't found innocent". As opposed to what? What's his current status? Should people have a prefix for the rest of their lives of 'accused'? By virtue of being found not guilty, he's assumed to be, and viewed as, innocent in the eyes of the law. The law doesn't work in shades. It doesn't find being part-guilty, a bit guilty, possibly guilty. Just guilty or not. Stop being so ridiculously pedantic. It's blatantly clear what the poll choices represent.

You might find it absurd but I can promise you a judge wouldn't let a barrister claim that his client had been "found Innocent" of a previous charge. He would pull him up very quickly on it

I suggest you ask on the legal thread about Not guilty & Found innocent.

Deleted User wrote: »

so hes not guilty

Of course he's not. Haven't you read any papers? He was found not guilty in a court of law.

Cupp3r · 10-09-2019 4:49pm

Lil Sally Anne Jnr. wrote: »

You sound like an absolute cretin. Tabloid reader?

Why do I sound like a cretin cause the "Victim" and I use that term lose, very lose , was proven to be lying.

It was Ms Florence’s account that proved most pertinent, with her comment that she did not believe that she had witnessed a rape.

Mr Kelly asked her whether she knew what the term “frozen in fear” meant, asking whether she thought the alleged victim had appeared this way as she watched her on the bed.

“No,” she replied.

Paddy223 · 10-09-2019 4:49pm

Let him and Bryce Walker live their lives in peace.

Homelander · 10-09-2019 4:50pm

You're missing my point. You're being pedantic. You know full well the meaning behind the poll option, that he was found not guilty and is entitled to be treated at same. It is commonly understand that someone is 'innocent' by virtue of being found not guilty. Yes, I know a court cannot find someone 'innocent'. Yes, I understand what the poll meant and voted for the second option.

10-09-2019 4:53pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

Of course he's not. Haven't you read any papers? He was found not guilty in a court of law.

oh i was just wondering. you seem to be struggling to find the short way to say it.

whether theres an effective difference between not guilty and innocent depends on context but isnt worth spending too much time on- as far as public discourse goes they're equivalent (as poll bears out)

_feedback_ · 10-09-2019 4:53pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I haven't voted because there isn't an option saying that he was acquitted or found not guilty. I'll be damned if I'm putting my name stating he was found innocent when he wasn't. I also believe the law has spoken & he should be left alone. It's not up to me to second guess a jury that heard all the evidence

Holy Christ, they mean the same thing..

Sleeper12 · 10-09-2019 4:55pm

Shefwedfan wrote:

I drive my car alot, I still would never claim to be a mechanic....or give mechanical advice

I suggest asking on the legal forum. They will explain the massive difference in found guilty & found innocent (if there was such a thing). One requires reasonable doubt. This is not guilty. The other, found innocent, would require 100 percent certainty like DNA evidence or proof that you were in a different country at the time. Either one of these would stop any charges being brought in the first place.

Stating someone was found innocent is totally misrepresentation of the facts.

As I say if you don't believe me the legal forum will put you straight.

Sleeper12 · 10-09-2019 5:04pm

Cupp3r wrote:

Why do I sound like a cretin cause the "Victim" and I use that term lose, very lose , was proven to be lying.

She wasn't proven to be lying

Cupp3r wrote:

It was Ms Florenceâ€™s account that proved most pertinent, with her comment that she did not believe that she had witnessed a rape.

This do not mean that the claimant gave consent. Some people believe that a rape has to involve screaming and shouting and violence but obviously this doesn't have to be the case. How many thousands of rapes in Ireland by fathers, brothers, uncles involved a passive submitting victim? No violence & no screaming or shouting.

I'm not saying paddy is guilty but your take on what one woman thought she saw and didn't see is a bit warped. There was no suggestion by the prosecution that the claimant was lying. You weren't there. You weren't even in the court yet you call the claimant a lyer?

Wow

Shefwedfan · 10-09-2019 5:07pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I suggest asking on the legal forum. They will explain the massive difference in found guilty & found innocent (if there was such a thing). One requires reasonable doubt. This is not guilty. The other, found innocent, would require 100 percent certainty like DNA evidence or proof that you were in a different country at the time. Either one of these would stop any charges being brought in the first place.

Stating someone was found innocent is totally misrepresentation of the facts.

As I say if you don't believe me the legal forum will put you straight.

Mike Ross is it? :P:P

Sorry if I want legal advice I will go to a legal person

Not some randomer on the internet who happened to walk past a courtroom one day

Cupp3r · 10-09-2019 5:25pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

She wasn't proven to be lying

This do not mean that the claimant gave consent. Some people believe that a rape has to involve screaming and shouting and violence but obviously this doesn't have to be the case. How many thousands of rapes in Ireland by fathers, brothers, uncles involved a passive submitting victim? No violence & no screaming or shouting.

I'm not saying paddy is guilty but your take on what one woman thought she saw and didn't see is a bit warped. There was no suggestion by the prosecution that the claimant was lying. You weren't there. You weren't even in the court yet you call the claimant a lyer?

Wow

I'm fair confident she's a liar.

Sleeper12 · 10-09-2019 5:29pm

Cupp3r wrote: »

I'm fair confident she's a liar.

That says more about you than about her in my humble opinion

alastair · 10-09-2019 5:31pm

greencap wrote: »

Wrong. Its at all times. As its a human right.

Nope - you haven't actually read the text, have you?

Yurt2 · 10-09-2019 5:34pm

Sleeper12 wrote: »

I suggest asking on the legal forum. They will explain the massive difference in found guilty & found innocent (if there was such a thing). One requires reasonable doubt. This is not guilty. The other, found innocent, would require 100 percent certainty like DNA evidence or proof that you were in a different country at the time. Either one of these would stop any charges being brought in the first place.

Stating someone was found innocent is totally misrepresentation of the facts.

As I say if you don't believe me the legal forum will put you straight.

Funnily enough, someone posed this very question on that forum today, and what would you know? Most responses appear to firmly disagree with your stance. Set straight indeed.

A sample reply:

"People can argue the morality and semantics of that innocence.
But!
The simple fact is that our justice system is entirely founded upon the basis of innocent until proven guilty.

As such, not guilty = innocent no matter how bunched up it may get knickers or triggered it makes people."

alastair · 10-09-2019 5:37pm

Homelander wrote: »

I find it absurd the people who go to lengths to point out "he wasn't found innocent". As opposed to what? What's his current status? Should people have a prefix for the rest of their lives of 'accused'? By virtue of being found not guilty, he's assumed to be, and viewed as, innocent in the eyes of the law. The law doesn't work in shades. It doesn't find being part-guilty, a bit guilty, possibly guilty. Just guilty or not. Stop being so ridiculously pedantic. It's blatantly clear what the poll choices represent.

The law has no view on his innocence, just as it has no view on anyone else's innocence. It judged that the charges brought against him were not sufficient to to find him guilty beyond reasonable doubt. That's where the law began and ended.

alastair · 10-09-2019 5:39pm

_feedback_ wrote: »

Holy Christ, they mean the same thing..

Soo - OJ is an innocent man then?

alastair · 10-09-2019 5:44pm

Yurt! wrote: »

Funnily enough, someone posed this very question on that forum today, and what would you know? Most responses appear to firmly disagree with your stance. Set straight indeed.

A sample reply:

"People can argue the morality and semantics of that innocence.
But!
The simple fact is that our justice system is entirely founded upon the basis of innocent until proven guilty.

As such, not guilty = innocent no matter how bunched up it may get knickers or triggered it makes people."

Presumption of innocence is really nothing to do with morality or semantics - It's a requirement of a defendant in a trial until a verdict is reached. It has no legal bearing before or after the trial, and that's not founded in semantics, morality or anything else esoteric - it's a fact of legislation.

Yurt2 · 10-09-2019 5:45pm

alastair wrote: »

Soo - OJ is an innocent man then?

You're dancing on the head of a pin here.

greencap · 10-09-2019 5:51pm

alastair wrote: »

Nope - you haven't actually read the text, have you?

wrong. ive read the entire text and more, and it basically says that all humans are innocent until proven guilty in all circumstances. its a human right.
why can't you just accept all the proof, the poll, and the multiple people telling you you're wrong about this. again, you're wrong.

Sleeper12 · 10-09-2019 5:55pm

Yurt! wrote: »

Funnily enough, someone posed this very question on that forum today, and what would you know? Most responses appear to firmly disagree with your stance. Set straight indeed.

A sample reply:

"People can argue the morality and semantics of that innocence.
But!
The simple fact is that our justice system is entirely founded upon the basis of innocent until proven guilty.

As such, not guilty = innocent no matter how bunched up it may get knickers or triggered it makes people."

I think you deliberately missed the point & posted something that looks like a real answer to what I said all the while knowing it's talking about something different.

Let's get this straight. I already said he is innocent as he was found not guilty. The burden of proof of this verdict is reasonable doubt. I never questioned his guilt or innocence. i repeatedly said I totally respect the jury's verdict of not guilty.

What I stated was that he was NOT found Innocent as there is no such thing as being found innocent. There is a genuine legal reason why the verdict is not guilty as opposed to found innocent. Legally they would be two totally different things if there was a innocent verdict. To be found innocent would require 100 percent certainty of his innocence & I'm very glad we don't have such a thing. If a jury has to have 100 percent certainty rather than reasonable doubt about someones innocence we'd find almost every court case ending in a conviction. More guilty people would go to jail BUT then we would also have innocent people going to jail. We have reasonable doubt & a not guilty verdict.

Being "found innocent" in a court is a made up thing. There is no such verdict.

Why don't you ask the legal forum is there such a verdict as "found innocent" outside of bad movies.

Sleeper12 · 10-09-2019 5:56pm

alastair wrote: »

Soo - OJ is an innocent man then?

So is Michael Jackson :pac:

Protest Paddy Jackson playing at the weekend?

Comments