Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Protest Paddy Jackson playing at the weekend?

Options
1…5681011…23

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Lux23
    Registered Users Posts: 7,134 ✭✭✭Lux23


    Karma.


  • Options
    #213
    Portsalon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Portsalon


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    Yes

    To what extend nobody knows because she walked off to live the rest of her life while the men and ladies on the other side had their faces and lives splashed all over the press

    Even the other lady witness, people have no issues mentioning her name on this thread and also calling her evidence into question.....

    Is it right for her to be splashed all over the press? or have randomers say she lied?


    Your obsession with face splashing leads me to wonder what's going on in your subconscious!


  • Options
    #214
    Sweet.Science
    Registered Users Posts: 2,928 ✭✭✭Sweet.Science


    Jaysis just let the man play Rugby and get on with his life.


  • Options
    #215
    Portsalon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Portsalon


    Sweet.Science wrote: »
    Jaysis just let the man play Rugby and get on with his life.

    Who is stopping him from doing either?


  • Options
    #216
    BookNerd
    Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭BookNerd


    Ave Sodalis wrote: »
    How about we advocate the idea that absolutely none of us know the full details of what, overall, was a very messy case, and the only people who got all the details in order to determine exactly what was needed to make a judgement were the people involved in making a judgement. Instead of asking loaded questions designed solely to provoke an argument where neither side know for sure what was going on.


    Well the issue with rape cases tends to be it's a he said/she said issue. It's very difficult to prove or disprove rape. And if there's any reasonable doubt, the accused must be found not guilty. But that doesn't mean the accuser wasn't raped.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,009 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    alastair wrote: »
    Defamation is also a legal issue - played out in a courtroom. It doesn’t imply that there is any ‘river’ of presumed innocence running through our culture. You could argue that the law is proof that the exact opposite is the case. I don’t believe Jackson is innocent. I’m entitled to hold that belief, and I’m also entitled to articulate that belief, even if there’s also an entitlement on Jackson’s part to defend himself from my belief in court.
    alastair wrote: »
    Neither Jackson nor OJ are innocent. No law requires that I presume either are.


    No law requires that you presume either are, but if you profess your beliefs in public domain you leave yourself open to be sued for defamation and slander.


  • Options
    #218
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,009 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Portsalon wrote: »
    Who is stopping him from doing either?
    the pink haired gender neutral brigade are out in force on this one, as self evidenced by the vocal minority of people who disregard the court's findings


  • Options
    #219
    Portsalon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Portsalon


    ELM327 wrote: »
    the pink haired gender neutral brigade are out in force on this one, as self evidenced by the vocal minority of people who disregard the court's findings

    In what way are they "stopping him from playing rugby"?


  • Options
    #220
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,385 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    ELM327 wrote: »
    1 - there is no finding of "innocent" in law, as you do not need to be found innocent because your default state is innocent.


    2 - we've done this already.


    QED

    Sure. Courts don’t find people innocent as you said. It doesn’t even attempt to file on innocence. It rules on guilt or not. Jackson was found not guilty so that’s the end of it unless someone says the court found him innocent. The court didn’t find him innocent. Courts don’t find anyone innocent.


  • Options
    #221
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Yurt! wrote: »
    You're in knots here. You don't enter 'the courtroom' through a wormhole via the Starship Enterprise. The legal framework is intimately related to 'the real world,' our culture and the social contract that binds us all together and separates us from simians. The presumption of innocence is not discreet from culture and society. This is reflected in laws against libel and slander.


    You have no more 'the right' to defame anyone than you have the right to trespass or commit an act of invasion of one's privacy.


    Presumption of innocence is entirely framed by charges in a courtroom - and has zero effect beyond those charges in that particular court case. There is no social contract that requires any presumption of innocence.

    I have a right of freedom of expression. A right to defend against defamation also exists, but your legal presumption of innocence also applies to my right of free expression in such legal proceedings. It’s not defamation until proven to be such.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    Henry Ford III
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators Posts: 17,722 Mod ✭✭✭✭Henry Ford III


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    .... Because whatever he did he crossed a line and i think everyone agrees with that.

    What did he do exactly?


  • Options
    #223
    BookNerd
    Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭BookNerd


    Deleted User wrote: »
    What exactly did paddy Jackson say that was derogatory

    At 11:17am, Olding responds to the JACOME WhatsApp group to say, "we are all top shaggers” and “there was a bit of spit roasting going on last night fellas."

    Jackson adds, "There was a lot of spit roast last night."


    Source :https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032


  • Options
    #224
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,385 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    ELM327 wrote: »
    The mind indeed boggles, how could they be found to be in a state that they are already in?

    Sounds simple. If they’re already there it should be easy to find them there. But the court doesn’t say they’re found innocent. It says they’re found not guilty.

    I’ve no idea why people are getting caught up In this. It’s a point of law that would be suited to the legal forum.


  • Options
    #225
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,009 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    BookNerd wrote: »
    At 11:17am, Olding responds to the JACOME WhatsApp group to say, "we are all top shaggers” and “there was a bit of spit roasting going on last night fellas."

    Jackson adds, "There was a lot of spit roast last night."


    Source :https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032
    The first one is bigheadedness and the second two are statements of fact.


    None of the three are derogatory. Next.


  • Options
    #226
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,009 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Sounds simple. If they’re already there it should be easy to find them there. But the court doesn’t say they’re found innocent. It says they’re found not guilty.

    I’ve no idea why people are getting caught up In this. It’s a point of law that would be suited to the legal forum.
    It's a small tenet but very important distinction. Or rather, a cross point between common parlance and legal terms.


    Not Guilty is the finding because a court cannot find someone innocent because they are already innocent.


    Now you can clutch at straws and claim there's a difference, but, when it's a binary decision of Guilty Y/N, and he's not found guilty, he is found innocent


  • Options
    #227
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    ELM327 wrote: »
    None of the three are derogatory. Next.

    Because you’re personally fine with being equated to a lump of meat. Gotcha.


  • Options
    #228
    Portsalon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Portsalon


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Sounds simple. If they’re already there it should be easy to find them there. But the court doesn’t say they’re found innocent. It says they’re found not guilty.

    I’ve no idea why people are getting caught up In this. It’s a point of law that would be suited to the legal forum.

    But rugger chaps have always enjoyed discussing the finer points of law over a pint or three of Heino.

    While the Jackson/Olding affair may not be quite as meaty as a discussion of which prop caused a particular scrum to collapse, or whether the choke tackle has sexual connotations, it'll help pass the time until the Rugby World Cup kicks off.


  • Options
    #229
    Portsalon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Portsalon


    ELM327 wrote: »

    The first one is bigheadedness and the second two are statements of fact.

    None of the three are derogatory. Next.


    Which may well be why he and his fellow "top shaggers" weren't prosecuted for sending derogatory texts.


  • Options
    #230
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    ELM327 wrote: »
    It's a small tenet but very important distinction. Or rather, a cross point between common parlance and legal terms.


    Not Guilty is the finding because a court cannot find someone innocent because they are already innocent.


    Now you can clutch at straws and claim there's a difference, but, when it's a binary decision of Guilty Y/N, and he's not found guilty, he is found innocent

    Nobody is found innocent. The point of a binary determination is that it isn’t a third determination.


  • Options
    #231
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,092 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    alastair wrote:
    Presumption of innocence is entirely framed by charges in a courtroom - and has zero effect beyond those charges in that particular court case. There is no social contract that requires any presumption of innocence.


    There sort of is in that if you publicly call Jackson or anyone else found not guilty a rapist Well then you can be sued. Obviously you are allowed to hold your own opinion on a virdict but legally the assumption presumption is outside of the court too


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,385 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    Yes


    To what extend nobody knows because she walked off to live the rest of her life while the men and ladies on the other side had their faces and lives splashed all over the press


    Even the other lady witness, people have no issues mentioning her name on this thread and also calling her evidence into question.....



    Is it right for her to be splashed all over the press? or have randomers say she lied?

    So you make a judgement about whether one person you don’t know lied, and then question whether it’s right to make a judgement about whether another person you don’t know lied.

    I don’t make a judgement on either of them because I’m aware that I don’t have enough information.


  • Options
    #233
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Portsalon wrote: »
    Which may well be why he and his fellow "top shaggers" weren't prosecuted for sending derogatory texts.

    Derogatory remarks are not prosecutable. So that was never going to happen.


  • Options
    #234
    Portsalon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Portsalon


    alastair wrote: »
    Derogatory remarks are not prosecutable. So that was never going to happen.

    Wow! I never knew that! :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #235
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,009 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    alastair wrote: »
    Because you’re personally fine with being equated to a lump of meat. Gotcha.


    this:
    Portsalon wrote: »
    Which may well be why he and his fellow "top shaggers" weren't prosecuted for sending derogatory texts.


  • Options
    #236
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    There sort of is in that if you publicly call Jackson or anyone else found not guilty a rapist Well then you can be sued. Obviously you are allowed to hold your own opinion on a virdict but legally the assumption presumption is outside of the court too

    You can be sued for all sorts of fatuous reasons. That doesn’t mean you’ll be found guilty. There is absolutely no presumption of innocence outside a court of law. OJ is not innocent. Nobody believes he’s innocent, and the notion that there’s any obligation on people to believe otherwise is inane. The same is true for any other individual. If there were a requirement, you’d have no difficulty in pointing out where it was codified in law.


  • Options
    #237
    robbiezero
    Registered Users Posts: 4,474 ✭✭✭robbiezero


    ELM327 wrote: »
    The first one is bigheadedness and the second two are statements of fact.


    None of the three are derogatory. Next.

    Is the quote even correct (Wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't given the source)

    Most sources indicate he said "There was a lot of spit" without including the word roast.

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/court-hears-claims-that-rugby-stars-acused-of-rape-boasted-about-sex-on-whatsapp-825542.html


  • Options
    #238
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,009 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    robbiezero wrote: »
    Is the quote even correct (Wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't given the source)

    Most sources indicate he said "There was a lot of spit" without including the word roast.

    https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/court-hears-claims-that-rugby-stars-acused-of-rape-boasted-about-sex-on-whatsapp-825542.html
    Suits the lefty SJW agenda better to add roast to the quote
    Sure if we're disregarding court verdicts and the rule of law, what's a few changes to an attributed quote while we're at it.


  • Options
    #239
    Guy:Incognito
    Registered Users Posts: 38,247 ✭✭✭✭Guy:Incognito


    ILoveYourVibes wrote: »
    This means nothing to them. Nor me.

    And regardless of which the texts were enough.

    Presumably if he was found guilty it would have meant plenty?

    Which texts exactly from paddy Jackson have you issues with?


  • Options
    #240
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    BookNerd wrote: »
    At 11:17am, Olding responds to the JACOME WhatsApp group to say, "we are all top shaggers” and “there was a bit of spit roasting going on last night fellas."

    Jackson adds, "There was a lot of spit roast last night."


    Source :https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032


    Therein lies my point. The text messages are not a valid argument against Jackson. It was Craig Gilroy who said the worst of it with "Any sluts get ****ed". He got a one match ban and still plays for Ulster. You should be more outraged by him if it was simply about the text messages and attitudes towards women.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #241
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Suits the lefty SJW agenda better to add roast to the quote
    Sure if we're disregarding court verdicts and the rule of law, what's a few changes to an attributed quote while we're at it.


    Can you stop with this SJW lefty pink hair brigade. It adds nothing.


Advertisement