Sil Fox cleared (Very clear video evidence of lies of accuser)

kennethsmyth

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

My opinion is that I'd need to read up a bit more on the case to have an opinion.

What's your opinion on the claim of "pro feminist agenda" with no supporting evidence?

Then read up on it. In the meantime he was wronged and the courts proved this. He should of never been charged if DPP did their actual job.

silver2020

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Then read up on it. In the meantime he was wronged and the courts proved this. He should of never been charged if DPP the Gardai did their actual job.

I corrected that post.


The gardai do the investigation and this has shown a high level of maliciousness and incompetence by the gardai involved who seemed to have assumed Mr Fox was guilty and ignored evidence that proved otherwise.

There was a case in Clare recently where the judge directed the jury to find the defendant innocent of all charges and suggested that the garda investigation be looked into.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

But It is about her gender. It's against natural justice that a woman can make false accusations against a male who is condemned until found innocent and there are no repercussions for her.

We've been here before with the Belfast Rugby trial. It didn't take the jury then very long to find those guys innocent. Even then afterwards, people still believed they weren't innocent, based on WhatsApp messages they didn't approve of.

If you accuse someone in court and fail then it shouldn't be hidden under the pretext that it might prevent others from coming forward. That's not natural justice.

It's an incitement for one sex to be able to make claims that can't be stood over without any repercussions, knowing that simply getting their accuser named in court is a form of undue punishment.

When we talk about gender equality, it's yet another part that is excluded for men.

I think there's a bit of a difference in the rugby case, in that the woman there had actually had a sexual ecounter. While I believe the case had the correct legal outcome and the the media hype should have been avoided, it wasn't as black-and-white as the Syl Fox case. Certainly, there was no proof that the entire accusation was deliberately false.

99nsr125

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I think there's a bit of a difference in the rugby case, in that the woman there had actually had a sexual ecounter. While I believe the case had the correct legal outcome and the the media hype should have been avoided, it wasn't as black-and-white as the Syl Fox case. Certainly, there was no proof that the entire accusation was deliberately false.

It's just as black and white, that's why there are only two verdicts, innocent or guilty.

Attention seeking behaviour that destroys someone's live is akin to attempted murder or grievous bodily harm

Caquas

99nsr125 wrote: »

It's just as black and white, that's why there are only two verdicts, innocent or guilty.

Attention seeking behaviour that destroys someone's live is akin to attempted murder or grievous bodily harm

There is a fundamental difference with the Belfast case and the two issues should not be conflated.

In Belfast, there was a case to go before a jury although ultimately (and I think rightly) the jury acquitted both accused. In contrast, there was no case against Sil Fox because of the video evidence and the judge dismissed the proceedings before they even began. That's why Sil Fox will win big against the DPP and the Gardai while the Belfast pair can't sue anyone although their lives were ruined.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

99nsr125 wrote: »

It's just as black and white, that's why there are only two verdicts, innocent or guilty.

Attention seeking behaviour that destroys someone's live is akin to attempted murder or grievous bodily harm

That's a ridiculously simplistic view.

Not every not guilty verdict is a consequence of 'attention seeking behaviour'.

99nsr125

Caquas wrote: »

There is a fundamental difference with the Belfast case and the two issues should not be conflated.

In Belfast, there was a case to go before a jury although ultimately (and I think rightly) the jury acquitted both accused. In contrast, there was no case against Sil Fox because of the video evidence and the judge dismissed the proceedings before they even began. That's why Sil Fox will win big against the DPP and the Gardai while the Belfast pair can't sue anyone although their lives were ruined.

There is no difference there are only two verdicts possible guilty or innocent, that's it, that's the outcome.

Both innocent defendants also have their lives destroyed.

99nsr125

99nsr125 wrote: »

There is no difference there are only two verdicts possible guilty or innocent, that's it.

Guilty or not guilty.
They are the two possible verdicts

99nsr125

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That's a ridiculously simplistic view.

Not every not guilty verdict is a consequence of 'attention seeking behaviour'.

What do you call a knowingly false accusation then.

A slip of the tongue ?

A little white lie ?


These are serious charges and someone who falsly accuses innocent people of serious crimes is a serious danger to society.

99nsr125

99nsr125 wrote: »

What do you call a knowingly false accusation then.

A slip of the tongue ?

A little white lie ?


These are serious charges and someone who falsly accuses innocent people of serious crimes is a serious danger to society.

False accusers deserve to be brought before the courts.
Not guilty verdicts are not just because of false accusations.

AndrewJRenko

kennethsmyth wrote: »

Then read up on it. In the meantime he was wronged and the courts proved this. He should of never been charged if DPP did their actual job.

The DPP loses cases in the Courts every day. That doesn't 'prove that the case should never have been taken'.

But even if we accept that this case should never have been taken, that's still a very, very long way from the claims of pro-feminist agenda that we've seen on this thread.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

99nsr125 wrote: »

There is no difference there are only two verdicts possible guilty or innocent, that's it, that's the outcome.

Both innocent defendants also have their lives destroyed.

Innocent is not a legal outcome in court.

99nsr125 wrote: »

What do you call a knowingly false accusation then.

A slip of the tongue ?

A little white lie ?


These are serious charges and someone who falsly accuses innocent people of serious crimes is a serious danger to society.

You asnwered your own question here.

Question for you: do you every single rape/sexual assault case only have to two possibilities: they defendent did it or the accuser deliberately made it up?

Yes or no?

Caquas

bubblypop wrote: »

Guilty or not guilty.
They are the two possible verdicts

Wrong. If that were true , Sil Fox would get nothing.

But in his case there was only one possible outcome, not guilty. In effect, the judge said “What are you doing here? One look at video tells you there is no case”.

...Ghost...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The DPP loses cases in the Courts every day. That doesn't 'prove that the case should never have been taken'.

But even if we accept that this case should never have been taken, that's still a very, very long way from the claims of pro-feminist agenda that we've seen on this thread.

No, but the CCTV footage does. Have you formed an opinion yet?

Caquas

Caquas wrote: »

Wrong. If that were true , Sil Fox would get nothing.

But in his case there was only one possible outcome, not guilty. In effect, the judge said “What are you doing here? One look at video tells you there is no case”.

I think you should read your and mine posts again..........

jimwallace197

For me, the biggest issue in this case is the fact that the DPP and investigating detectives decided to go ahead with this case despite glaring evidence contradicting the complainants claim.

We are only aware of this case because Sil Fox's rights were not protected when it came to anonymity as they aren't in a sexual assault case as opposed to a rape case where both the complainant and defendants rights along with anonymity are protected. What about the potentially many cases where men have been accused falsely of rape, its gone to trial, they have been acquitted but the public never knows about it because the accuser was lying just like in Sil Fox case.

So, in truth, there could be many many males falsely accused of an even more serious accusation than Sil Fox but have had to suffer alone in silence because of the stigma a rape accusation brings.

For the people saying, this type of thing doesn't happen very often, how do they know?? do they think for one second a man is going to come forward and publicly talk about how he was acquitted of rape.

This case shines a light on the injustices facing men from our garda and the bias attitudes that exist currently in the office of the DPP. People may claim she is qualified but frankly its an irrelevant argument(although I still believe she is not qualified) as to whether she is or not because we didnt hear of any of these type of cases under the previous DPP but they are becoming more & more common under her rein, that in itself is evidence.

The real injustice in all of this is that her office along with so called investigating detectives are protected when its blatant they are guilty of crimes themselves in pursuing knowingly false accusations. Immunity needs to be removed and people like this need to be locked up because not only do they destroy the life of an innocent defendant but the their family around them aswell. How many more peoples lives have they attempted to destroy and we dont know anything about? How many men have not been able to pursue them because of the immunity that protects them?

I spoke to a recently retired garda who was one of the good few, a good man, he made it clear to me that the likes of the Maurice McCabe scandal, blatant corruption of the last two Commissioners, penalty points & overtimes scandal is only the tip of the iceberg. Corruption amongst our gardai is rampant, the general public need to wake up to this.

Our so called Justice minister was on the radio this morning talking about the mini riots in Dublin yesterday with regard to the lockdowns threatening serious consequences for those who engaged in these protests whether they knew they would become violent or not all because one garda had to go to hospital.

She is a twit, another one who is way out of her depth, 34, inherited her fathers seat and carried around Simon Coveneys bags in Europe for 2 years while he made a mess of the brexit issue & her compounding that issue.

Only solution is the removal of the weak & ineffective Michael Martin, Fianna Fail & Sinn Fein co-coalition and getting rid of the toxicity and sheer incompetence of the Fine Gael party. The sooner they are removed from our countries history, the better.

AndrewJRenko

...Ghost... wrote: »

No, but the CCTV footage does. Have you formed an opinion yet?

So just to be clear, the 'pro feminist agenda' mentioned above relates to this one case, and only this one case - is that correct?

...Ghost...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So just to be clear, the 'pro feminist agenda' mentioned above relates to this one case, and only this one case - is that correct?

Just to be clear, the CCTV footage proves that Sil Fox did not do anything of what was claimed by the liar who goes without being so much as named.

For someone who claims to not have formed an opinion on this case due to not reading up on it (that's what you said a few days ago), you have posted here quite a bit. Some people might start to think you are pushing a certain agenda.

jimwallace197

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So just to be clear, the 'pro feminist agenda' mentioned above relates to this one case, and only this one case - is that correct?

Coming from the poster who refuses to look into the case and when contradicted in his stance, pleads ignorant, is now questioning other posters??

Why dont you crawl back to that hole that you came from. Do us all a favour

Curse These Metal Hands

...Ghost... wrote: »

Just to be clear, the CCTV footage proves that Sil Fox did not do anything of what was claimed by the liar who goes without being so much as named.

For someone who claims to not have formed an opinion on this case due to not reading up on it (that's what you said a few days ago), you have posted here quite a bit. Some people might start to think you are pushing a certain agenda.

The article in the OP would take two minutes to read, where they will learn that Sil Fox is most undoubtedly innocent. But for some reason, they have absolutely no interest in reading it. Weird.

...Ghost...

jimwallace197 wrote: »

We are only aware of this case because Sil Fox's rights were not protected when it came to anonymity as they aren't in a sexual assault case as opposed to a rape case where both the complainant and defendants rights along with anonymity are protected.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't it true that if the alleged victim in a rape case waives her right to anonymity, the accused gets identified? The defendants right to anonymity is erased if the accuser is named.

But the same is not true in lesser cases. The accused is named regardless.

Because equality :rolleyes:

...Ghost...

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

The article in the OP would take two minutes to read, where they will learn that Sil Fox is most undoubtedly innocent. But for some reason, they have absolutely no interest in reading it. Weird.

No interest in admitting they read it would be far more likely. No holes to poke, so "oh, erm, I haven't investigated it, so I have not formed an opinion".

odyssey06

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

The article in the OP would take two minutes to read, where they will learn that Sil Fox is most undoubtedly innocent. But for some reason, they have absolutely no interest in reading it. Weird.

I think there's a word for a poster who bombs into a thread, declares ignorance of the topic at hand, refuses to take the basic step of reading up on the topic at hand, and yet posts away in self-declared ignorance. Well I think the contempt that says about how they have approached the topic is repeated back at them in terms of their own posts.

AndrewJRenko

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Coming from the poster who refuses to look into the case and when contradicted in his stance, pleads ignorant, is now questioning other posters??

Why dont you crawl back to that hole that you came from. Do us all a favour

So no actual evidence of the pro-feminist agenda that you claimed then, Jim? One case isn't really much of an agenda, is it?

...Ghost...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

So no actual evidence of the pro-feminist agenda that you claimed then, Jim? One case isn't really much of an agenda, is it?

So, still no opinion then? Do you think the DPP should have taken the case against Sil Fox?

AndrewJRenko

...Ghost... wrote: »

So, still no opinion then? Do you think the DPP should have taken the case against Sil Fox?

Correct, still no opinion, because I still haven't read up on the issue.


But let's just say, for the sake of arguement, that you're right - that the DPP should not have taken the case against Fox;


Now, where's that 'pro feminist agenda' that Jim claimed was going on? I'd have thought that an 'agenda' would involve more than one actual case. So is there an 'agenda', or is there one case?

walshb

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

The DPP loses cases in the Courts every day. That doesn't 'prove that the case should never have been taken'.

But even if we accept that this case should never have been taken, that's still a very, very long way from the claims of pro-feminist agenda that we've seen on this thread.

Forget pro feminist agenda here..

Maybe it was simply a case of gung ho reckless incompetent decisions and actions by AGS and DPP

A crooked and bent case that leaked through...

...Ghost...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Correct, still no opinion, because I still haven't read up on the issue.


But let's just say, for the sake of arguement, that you're right - that the DPP should not have taken the case against Fox;


Now, where's that 'pro feminist agenda' that Jim claimed was going on? I'd have thought that an 'agenda' would involve more than one actual case. So is there an 'agenda', or is there one case?

No, lets just wait until you take two minutes to read up on it, so that you can declare an opinion. Because the thread is about Sil Fox being cleared and any side agenda you are chasing can take a back seat until you have done that.

Or keep pretending that you haven't read up on it. You're fooling nobody.

Here is the article in the OP. Have a look there. It will be quick.
It was posted in June last year. Shouldn't take you that long to read up on it

AndrewJRenko

...Ghost... wrote: »

No, lets just wait until you take two minutes to read up on it, so that you can declare an opinion. Because the thread is about Sil Fox being cleared and any side agenda you are chasing can take a back seat until you have done that.

Or keep pretending that you haven't read up on it. You're fooling nobody.

Here is the article in the OP. Have a look there. It will be quick.
It was posted in June last year. Shouldn't take you that long to read up on it

Don't hold your breath waiting.

I'm not the one chasing agendas here. I'm not the one who claimed there was a pro-feminist agenda going on here, despite the complete absence of any evidence of an agenda.

...Ghost...

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Don't hold your breath waiting.

I'm not the one chasing agendas here. I'm not the one who claimed there was a pro-feminist agenda going on here, despite the complete absence of any evidence of an agenda.

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Sure. Pull the other one.

You'd gleefully watch an innocent man sent to jail because a woman lied and claimed he did something he most definitely did not. Thanks Andy, you've just provided all the evidence the other poster was looking for.