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…6791112…23

Comments

  • Options
    #242
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    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.


    I didn't make a judgement to say she lied, a court and a jury made that judgement.....


  • Options
    #243
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    I didn't make a judgement to say she lied, a court and a jury made that judgement.....

    No they didn’t. 🙄


  • Options
    #244
    BookNerd
    Registered Users Posts: 56 ✭✭BookNerd


    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.

    It was the first Google result that came up. I didn't write the article and I didn't see any others that said different. It's also a site aimed at men so......


  • Options
    #245
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,009 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Can you stop with this SJW lefty pink hair brigade. It adds nothing.
    Sorry, am I being hairphobic, colorphobic, politicophobic?
    Don't worry, this is a safe place where the rule of law prevails, although to you that's closer to a nadir than an ideal.


  • Options
    #246
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    ELM327 wrote: »
    Sorry, am I being hairphobic, colorphobic, politicophobic?
    Don't worry, this is a safe place where the rule of law prevails, although to you that's closer to a nadir than an ideal.


    No, you just sound like a brainwashed child and it's belittling your arguments.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #247
    Portsalon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Portsalon


    Deleted User wrote: »
    No, you just sound like a brainwashed child and it's belittling your arguments.

    "arguments" is a tad generous!

    Remember, this is the lad who thinks that people are "stopping" poor Paddy from playing rugby.


  • Options
    #248
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,092 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    You are demonstrating that you have no understanding of how court cases work or what a not guilty virdict means.

    If it was proved in court that she lied then she would have been charged with purgery, wasting police time etc. You probably actually think that not guilty means that the defence didn't lie. The jury had reasonable doubt. No more & no less. The verdict doesn't mean one side lied & one didn't. That is a childish understanding of what happens in court


  • Options
    #249
    BarryD2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,732 ✭✭✭BarryD2


    Portsalon wrote: »
    Remember, this is the lad who thinks that people are "stopping" poor Paddy from playing rugby.

    In fairness, there has been a vindictive campaign carried on by a few attempting to stop him following his career. Lobbying clubs, sponsors and so on. In the pre social media days, this sort of campaign would have zero traction. But these days all you have to do is keep throwing mud and some will stick.

    All the parties to this affair have suffered enough, well past time to move on, regardless of who was innocent, guilty or somewhere in between on all sides.


  • Options
    #250
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,385 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    I didn't make a judgement to say she lied, a court and a jury made that judgement.....

    Ah now you’re going way too far. The court didn’t say she lied. I’m not sure you get how court works at all.

    Seriously, the court didn’t say she lied.


  • Options
    #251
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    You are demanding that you have no understanding of how court cases work or what a not guilty virdict means.

    The jury had reasonable doubt. No more & no less.

    There is absolutely no way you could know this without having been in the deliberation room. Zero, none, no way.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #252
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    Sleeper12 wrote: »
    You are demanding that you have no understanding of how court cases work or what a not guilty virdict means.

    If it was proved in court that she lied then she would have been charged with purgery, wasting police time etc. You probably actually think that not guilty means that the defence didn't lie. The jury had reasonable doubt. No more & no less. The verdict doesn't mean one side lied & one didn't. That is a childish understanding of what happens in court


    I am not demanding anything


    Plus putting together a little story, none of which I said, and then accusing me of been childish is a bit odd


  • Options
    #253
    Portsalon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Portsalon


    Given that PJ and SO were found not guilty in a Court of Law, isn't it remarkable that the judge who sat through that trial, heard all of the evidence and watched PJ's highly paid lawyer metaphorically screwing the accuser in the witness box, day after day, decided that they weren't entitled to have their costs paid?

    I wonder what could have led her to refuse to award costs to these "completely innocent" men.

    Go figure.


  • Options
    #254
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,385 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Yurt! wrote: »
    There is absolutely no way you could know this without having been in the deliberation room. Zero, none, no way.

    Thats all the jury are asked to do so their verdict speaks for itself. The just is asked to decide whether there is reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt. If so then they find not guilty. You don’t have to be in the deliberation room to know there was reasonable doubt about his guilt. That’s literally all their verdict means.


  • Options
    #255
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    Boards is blessed with some of the greatest legal minds in the World.....

    We should have the best legal system in the World with such knowledgable people

    I have no idea why legal professionals spend so long in uni/training/work experience when you can just read "the Sun" or "The star" for a few weeks and know more than anyone else.....


  • Options
    #256
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,385 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    Boards is blessed with some of the greatest legal minds in the World.....

    We should have the best legal system in the World with such knowledgable people

    I have no idea why legal professionals spend so long in uni/training/work experience when you can just read "the Sun" or "The star" for a few weeks and know more than anyone else.....

    Just to clarify, are you the poster who said they think the court said he accuser lied?


  • Options
    #257
    Scoundrel
    Registered Users Posts: 1,435 ✭✭✭Scoundrel


    Hunky Monster wrote: »
    I’ll make a wild assumption here and say it’s probably the first rugby match most of them will have been to.

    They're not all bad so


  • Options
    #258
    Portsalon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Portsalon


    Shefwedfan wrote: »

    Boards is blessed with some of the greatest legal minds in the World.....

    We should have the best legal system in the World with such knowledgable people

    I have no idea why legal professionals spend so long in uni/training/work experience when you can just read "the Sun" or "The star" for a few weeks and know more than anyone else.....

    Correct. But bear in mind that Boards.ie is a very broad church - it also accommodates you.


  • Options
    #259
    Yurt2
    Registered Users Posts: 9,381 ✭✭✭Yurt2


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Thats all the jury are asked to do so their verdict speaks for itself. The just is asked to decide whether there is reasonable doubt about the accused’s guilt. If so then they find not guilty. You don’t have to be in the deliberation room to know there was reasonable doubt about his guilt. That’s literally all their verdict means.

    We know what reasonable doubt means. But the poster is trying to read the minds of the jury with his post. All 12 or none could have had a twinge of reasonable doubt to 'gtfo of here, she's not a credible witness.' We'll never know. Reasonable doubt is the the legal bar, but it is of course not to say that was the jury's opinion one and all.


  • Options
    #260
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,092 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Shefwedfan wrote:
    Plus putting together a little story, none of which I said, and then accusing me of been childish is a bit odd


    I stated that your understanding of court cases and the meaning of a not guilty virdict was a child like understanding. You should educate yourself about the court system before making further foolish comments.

    It never ceases to amaze me how many people can make it through our education system and still don't have a clue how things in Ireland & the rest of the world work. I left school at 14 in 1982 yet this was all covered in civics class. Another poster thinks we changed from being found innocent to found not guilty specially for paddy Jackson!


  • Options
    #261
    ELM327
    Registered Users Posts: 22,009 ✭✭✭✭ELM327


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    Boards is blessed with some of the greatest legal minds in the World.....

    We should have the best legal system in the World with such knowledgable people

    I have no idea why legal professionals spend so long in uni/training/work experience when you can just read "the Sun" or "The star" for a few weeks and know more than anyone else.....
    You forget the good old legal riposte ultima, the personal insult.
    Case in point:

    Deleted User wrote: »
    No, you just sound like a brainwashed child and it's belittling your arguments.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #262
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Portsalon wrote: »
    Given that PJ and SO were found not guilty in a Court of Law, isn't it remarkable that the judge who sat through that trial, heard all of the evidence and watched PJ's highly paid lawyer metaphorically screwing the accuser in the witness box, day after day, decided that they weren't entitled to have their costs paid?

    I wonder what could have led her to refuse to award costs to these "completely innocent" men.

    Go figure.


    I'm not familiar with this. Are the costs usually covered? Is it usually up to the judge?


  • Options
    #263
    El_Duderino 09
    Registered Users Posts: 20,385 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    Yurt! wrote: »
    We know what reasonable doubt means. But the poster is trying to read the minds of the jury with his post. All 12 or none could have had a twinge of reasonable doubt to 'gtfo of here, she's not a credible witness.' We'll never know. Reasonable doubt is the the legal bar, but it is of course not to say that was the jury's opinion one and all.

    Sure. So all we know is that they had reasonable doubt. Some clown earlier said they court said the accuser lied. Now that’s just guff.


  • Options
    #264
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,365 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with this. Are the costs usually covered? Is it usually up to the judge?

    At the time I remember that it’s unusual to award costs in a legal case. He was never likely to get it was how I remember it was talked about at the time.


  • Options
    #265
    Sleeper12
    Registered Users Posts: 17,092 ✭✭✭✭Sleeper12


    Yurt! wrote:
    There is absolutely no way you could know this without having been in the deliberation room. Zero, none, no way.


    Another poster needing to educate themselves on the court system.

    The is asked to decide if there is reasonable doubt or not. No more & no less.


  • Options
    #266
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,365 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Sure. So all we know is that they had reasonable doubt. Some clown earlier said they court said the accuser lied. Now that’s just guff.

    Well to be fair we know that at the very least they had reasonable doubt but it could and considering how quickly they came back was likely a lot higher.


  • Options
    #267
    Portsalon
    Closed Accounts Posts: 702 ✭✭✭Portsalon


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm not familiar with this. Are the costs usually covered? Is it usually up to the judge?

    Most of the defendants who appear in criminal trials apply for and get free legal aid. PJ and SO were too wealthy to get it, so their only remedy was to apply for their costs afterwards - the judge declined to award them.

    You'll find her reasons in the court reports which were published at the time (late 2018).


  • Options
    #268
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    El_Duderino 09 wrote: »
    Sure. So all we know is that they had reasonable doubt. Some clown earlier said they court said the accuser lied. Now that’s just guff.


    How do you know I am right or wrong?


  • Options
    #269
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    Portsalon wrote: »
    Most of the defendants who appear in criminal trials apply for and get free legal aid. PJ and SO were too wealthy to get it, so their only remedy was to apply for their costs afterwards - the judge declined to award them.

    You'll find her reasons in the court reports which were published at the time.

    SO went bust and had to get legal aid halfway through the case



    He was going for legal costs because he had no money left.....he was also sacked from his job with no pay off


  • Options
    #270
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Portsalon wrote: »
    Most of the defendants who appear in criminal trials apply for and get free legal aid. PJ and SO were too wealthy to get it, so their only remedy was to apply for their costs afterwards - the judge declined to award them.

    You'll find her reasons in the court reports which were published at the time (late 2018).


    Just to clarify, you are implying that the judge somehow found them "not guilty, but not innocent" by not awarding free legal aid? Or did infer that myself


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #271
    osarusan
    Registered Users Posts: 16,644 ✭✭✭✭osarusan


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    I didn't make a judgement to say she lied, a court and a jury made that judgement.....

    This notion that a not guilty verdict means the accuser must have lied comes out every time there is a not guilty verdict in a rape trial. Every time.

    The irony of you going on sarcastically about the great legal minds on boards when you don't have a clue what you are on about.


Advertisement