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

jimmycrackcorm

...Ghost... wrote:

Here, here! I couldn't agree more. A certain few posters on here want it to be about women. Truth is, it's about lies, corruption, negligence, incompetence and malice from certain organisations.

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.

jimwallace197

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Playing the sexist card gives them a way out and funnily enough, the one who is bringing up gender is in fact the most biased here when it comes to this topic and simply looks to avoid any of your questions.

Its funny how hypocritical they are but on the other hand, scary that they are involved in these type of cases no doubt.

You are the one bringing up the gender of both the DPP and the minister for justice, and you are the one who seems to have an issue with it.

jimwallace197

bubblypop wrote: »

You are the one bringing up the gender of both the DPP and the minister for justice, and you are the one who seems to have an issue with it.

How did I bring up that their gender was a determining factor in whether they were able to do their jobs effectively or not? Are you for real? Any chance you could contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way instead of just playing the sexist card again and again when it is clearly not about that and then avoiding any questions that contradict your point of view?

jimwallace197

jimwallace197 wrote: »

How did I bring up that their gender was a determining factor in whether they were able to do their jobs effectively or not? Are you for real? Any chance you could contribute to the discussion in a meaningful way instead of just playing the sexist card again and again when it is clearly not about that and then avoiding any questions that contradict your point of view?

You brought their gender into it.
It has nothing at all to do with the case that the thread is about.

jimwallace197

bubblypop wrote: »

You brought their gender into it.
It has nothing at all to do with the case that the thread is about.

In what way did I bring their gender into it??? I would be just as critical if it was men making these decisions.

jimwallace197

jimwallace197 wrote: »

And we have another one like her here right now, Claire Loftus, masters in public sector management and a diploma in European law. Way out of her depth and promoting a pro feminist agenda.

First post about the DPP.

quietsailor

bubblypop wrote: »

First post about the DPP.

He hasn't mentioned anything about her gender, maybe you're confusing gender with "feminist agenda " but you can be male and a feminist

jimwallace197

bubblypop wrote: »

First post about the DPP.

She could be a male promoting a feminist agenda. Nothing to do with her gender. I couldnt care less whether she is a male or female as long as she is able to do her job which it seems like she isnt.

Keto1456

Every single assertion here (apart from the fact, to be fair to you, that Claire Loftus is the first woman and solicitor DPP) is inaccurate. I say assertion because we need to have a society where certain assertions are officially dignified as truth and other assertions as opinions and others definitely a lie. Unfortunately, everything you have said falls into the latter category.

1. There isn't a "big, big difference" between solicitors and barristers. I can think of one difference that isn't big or indeed "big, big" that barristers generally present cases in the higher courts while solicitors prepare everything in the run-up to those cases. Many have, in my view quite rightly, said that the role of the DPP which is often more administrative than that which one would generally engage a barrister for is better suited to a solicitor.

2. Barrister and solicitors often do not study law in university and you will find that this is neither a new thing nor anything particularly novel. Even a cursory scan through the qualifications of judges in this country demonstrates this.

3. It was in fact much easier to become a barrister or solicitor in the 60s, 70s and early 80s and it was only during this period that they began to require barristers and solicitors to do primary degrees before qualifying. Previously, you could simply take the exams and if you passed you were entitled to apply to the Law Society or Law Library to begin your training. A glance at the fees required by both the Inns and the Law Society would hopefully convince you that neither of these professions is particularly accessible.

4. Hamilton throughout his tenure was critical of the lack of successful prosecutions of sexual assault and was a proponent of both the laws and practices relating to the prosecution of these offences being changed/amended to better protect victims of sexual abuse.

Perhaps rather than engaging in needlessly sexist tirades alleging that people have "agendas" for which you cannot produce evidence of because it doesn't exist, you could point to the need for greater funds and resources to be given to the office of the DPP to prevent errors like that which occurred in the Sil Fox case ever happening again.

...Ghost...

Keto1456 wrote: »

Every single assertion here (apart from the fact, to be fair to you, that Claire Loftus is the first woman and solicitor DPP) is inaccurate. I say assertion because we need to have a society where certain assertions are officially dignified as truth and other assertions as opinions and others definitely a lie. Unfortunately, everything you have said falls into the latter category.

1. There isn't a "big, big difference" between solicitors and barristers. I can think of one difference that isn't big or indeed "big, big" that barristers generally present cases in the higher courts while solicitors prepare everything in the run up to those cases. Many have, in my view quite rightly, said that the role of the DPP which is often more administrative than that which one would generally engage a barrister for is better suited to a solicitor.

2. Barrister and solicitors often do not study law in university and you will find that this is neither a new thing nor anything particularly novel. Even a cursory scan through the qualifications of judges in this country demonstrates this.

3. It was in fact much easier to become a barrister or solicitor in the 60s, 70s and early 80s and it was only during this period that they required began to require barristers and solicitors to do primary degrees before qualifying. Previously, you could simply take the exams and if you passed you were entitled to apply to the Law Society or Law Library to begin your training. A glance at the fees required by both the Inns and the Law Society would hopefully convince you that neither of these professions is particularly accessible.

4. Hamilton throughout his tenure was critical of the lack of successful prosecutions of sexual assault and was a proponent of both the laws and practices relating to the prosecution of these offences being changed/amended to better protect victims of sexual abuse.

Perhaps rather than engaging in needlessly sexist tirades alleging that people have "agendas" for which you cannot produce evidence of because it doesn't exist, you could point to the need for greater funds and resources to be given to the office of the DPP to prevent errors like that which occurred in the Sil Fox case ever happening again.

Some interesting points. Thanks for your input. Do you think it was a lack of funding which led Sil Fox to be wrongfully charged? I'd have expected a lack of funding to result in more cases being rejected tbh

jimwallace197

Keto1456 wrote: »

Every single assertion here (apart from the fact, to be fair to you, that Claire Loftus is the first woman and solicitor DPP) is inaccurate. I say assertion because we need to have a society where certain assertions are officially dignified as truth and other assertions as opinions and others definitely a lie. Unfortunately, everything you have falls into the latter category.

1. There isn't a "big, big difference" between solicitors and barristers. I can think of one difference that isn't big or indeed "big, big" that barristers generally present cases in the higher courts while solicitors prepare everything in the run up to those cases. Many have, in my view quite rightly, said that the role of the DPP which is often more administrative than that which one would generally engage a barrister for is better suited to a solicitor.

2. Barrister and solicitors often do not study law in university and you will find that this is neither a new thing nor anything particularly novel. Even a cursory scan through the qualifications of judges in this country demonstrates this.

3. It was in fact much easier to become a barrister or solicitor in the 60s, 70s and early 80s and it was only during this period that they required began to require barristers and solicitors to do primary degrees before qualifying. Previously, you could simply take the exams and if you passed you were entitled to apply to the Law Society or Law Library to begin your training. A glance at the fees required by both the Inns and the Law Society would hopefully convince you that neither of these professions is particularly accessible.

4. Hamilton throughout his tenure was critical of the lack of successful prosecutions of sexual assault and was a proponent of both the laws and practices relating to the prosecution of these offences being changed/amended to better protect victims of sexual abuse.

Perhaps rather than engaging in needlessly sexist tirades alleging that people have "agendas" for which you cannot produce evidence of because it doesn't exist, you could point to the need for greater funds and resources to be given to the office of the DPP to prevent errors like that which occurred in the Sil Fox case ever happening again.

Ridiculous

1) There isn't a big difference?? do you have any idea of how long it takes to become senior counsel as opposed to a solicitor and the level of experience/learning/training that you need to go through

2) Whats your point? Experience is key, not qualifications as I've explained previously

3) You don't have a clue what you are talking about? Most people were lucky to even finish second level education in this time period we are discussing. To become a barrister back then was on another level of difficulty and if you believe otherwise, you are naive in the extreme

4) I couldn't care less what he was critical of or not. He was paid to do a job which is whether to proceed with credible cases or not, which he did. This new DPP is not carrying out the job to the same level.

And finally, you want us to throw more money at an already incompetent organisation who cant even properly investigate open and shut sexual assault cases ruining peoples lives in the process. Lets reward them with more money, thats your solution, really???

And finally, how dare you accuse me of engaging in sexist tirades. If anyone here is sexist, its you and your kind

UcdLaw22

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Big big difference between a solicitor and a Barrister. She is the first DPP who wasnt a Barrister actually which may explain alot. Accumulating qualifications predominantly in History and the likes of Public Sector management (which is a ridiculous qualification btw) looks nice on paper but doesn't stack up on in real life. She was a solicitor, plenty of them around nowadays, doesn't make you fit to lead the office of the DPP. On top of this, its been much easier to obtain qualifications in recent times then it was in the 60's, 70's and 80's when the cost was much higher & access to education more limited.

As well as this, we didn't see the DPP proceeding with these type of ridiculous cases back when Hamilton was in charge, did we now?

And it has nothing to do with her gender, if it was a male, it would be just as bad.

We have only had three DPPs in the history of the State so not sure that being a barrister is much of a precedent. Can you explain why a barrister is more qualified than a solicitor to be DPP? Advocacy in court doesn't enhance one's ability in the role. To be a barrister you do the Inn's entrance examination, complete a one year degree course and then devil for a year. To be a solicitor you must pass the FE1s and then complete two and a half years training in office (and Blackhall). Equivalent levels of study and commitment required.

The reason there are more solicitors than barristers is that even a very talented and bright barrister will find it extremely difficult to survive during their first 10 years due to overcrowding of the profession, especially if they don't have connections or family monetary support. Until recently, devils weren't even entitled to minimum wage. By your logic, chemical engineers are superior to mechanical engineers because there are less of them. We have had several judges who were previously solicitors who are extremely well regarded, Michael Peart for one.

The incompetence in proceeding with the prosecution of Sil Fox in light of the clear CCTV evidence is baffling and I have the utmost sympathy for the man. False accusations carry a double harm - both to the person whose life they ruin with the accusation and to the doubt it generates towards genuine victims of rape and sexual assault. However, if it isn't about gender then maybe you should avoid thanking comments that say "another angry woman out of her depth" which doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Curse These Metal Hands

Out of interest, how would more funding have led to a different outcome for Sil Fox? Are people not reviewing key components of a case due to funding issues? Genuine question.

jimwallace197

UcdLaw22 wrote: »

We have only had three DPPs in the history of the State so not sure that being a barrister is much of a precedent. Can you explain why a barrister is more qualified than a solicitor to be DPP? Advocacy in court doesn't enhance one's ability in the role. To be a barrister you do the Inn's entrance examination, complete a one year degree course and then devil for a year. To be a solicitor you must pass the FE1s and then complete two and a half years training in office (and Blackhall). Equivalent levels of study and commitment required.

The reason there are more solicitors than barristers is that even a very talented and bright barrister will find it extremely difficult to survive during their first 10 years due to overcrowding of the profession, especially if they don't have connections or family monetary support. Until recently, devils weren't even entitled to minimum wage. By your logic, chemical engineers are superior to mechanical engineers because there are less of them. We have had several judges who were previously solicitors who are extremely well regarded, Michael Peart for one.

The incompetence in proceeding with the prosecution of Sil Fox in light of the clear CCTV evidence is baffling and I have the utmost sympathy for the man. False accusations carry a double harm - both to the person whose life they ruin with the accusation and to the doubt it generates towards genuine victims of rape and sexual assault. However, if it isn't about gender then maybe you should avoid thanking comments that say "another angry woman out of her depth" which doesn't add anything to the conversation.

Would you agree that Barristers have more experience in Criminal Law and as a result would be better positioned to proceed with cases such as this or not? I certainly would irrespective of the qualifications.

Would you also not agree that Barristers make up the vast majority of our Judiciary bar the rare exception that you have mentioned?

Also, thanks for paying such close attention to me as to see which posts I'm thanking or not but I was thanking this post primarily because he agreed that a qualification in public sector management and diploma in European Law does not qualify one to lead the office of the DPP.

UcdLaw22

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Ridiculous

1) There isn't a big difference?? do you have any idea of how long it takes to become senior counsel as opposed to a solicitor and the level of experience/learning/training that you need to go through

2) Whats your point? Experience is key, not qualifications as I've explained previously

3) You don't have a clue what you are talking about? Most people were lucky to even finish second level education in this time period we are discussing. To become a barrister back then was on another level of difficulty and if you believe otherwise, you are naive in the extreme

4) I couldn't care less what he was critical of or not. He was paid to do a job which is whether to proceed with credible cases or not, which he did. This new DPP is not carrying out the job to the same level.

And finally, you want us to throw more money at an already incompetent organisation who cant even properly investigate open and shut sexual assault cases ruining peoples lives in the process. Lets reward them with more money, thats your solution, really???

And finally, how dare you accuse me of engaging in sexist tirades. If anyone here is sexist, its you and your kind

You aren't comparing like with like. Obviously, a newly qualified solicitor and senior counsel would not compare. However, a senior counsel and solicitor with a successful practice built through years of experience would have absolutely been regarded as equals. Due to historical reasons, the title was originally reserved for barristers. But as a result of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 introduced by Helen McEntee, solicitors can now become SCs. 17 solicitors became SCs last year in fact. Thanks Helen, with your pro-solicitor agenda!

AndrewJRenko

jimwallace197 wrote: »

In what way did I bring their gender into it??? I would be just as critical if it was men making these decisions.

Remember your claim about the "pro feminist agenda" that you never produced any examples of?

AndrewJRenko

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

You're posting in a thread about a topic , where indisputable video evidence has cleared a man of a wrongful accusation, and you have no opinion?

It is factually and indisputably a false allegation. Do you have an opinion on whether water is wet or not?

I know it's an unusual approach around here, but generally, if I don't know much about a subject or an issue, I stay quiet about it.

jimwallace197

UcdLaw22 wrote: »

You aren't comparing like with like. Obviously, a newly qualified solicitor and senior counsel would not compare. However, a senior counsel and solicitor with a successful practice built through years of experience would have absolutely been regarded as equals. Due to historical reasons, the title was originally reserved for barristers. But as a result of the Legal Services Regulation Act 2015 introduced by Helen McEntee, solicitors can now become SCs. 17 solicitors became SCs last year in fact. Thanks Helen, with your pro-solicitor agenda!

Big woo hoo, some solicitors can call themselves senior counsels now, ground breaking stuff.

Where is her work in stopping malicious accusations in ruining innocent mens lives? This is what this thread is about in case you forgot.

Ive met and known plenty of solicitors who have successful practices through the years whether its through family law, insurance claims(many false), conveyancing or otherwise. None of them and I mean none of them would be able to lace the boots of real senior counsel.

Keto1456

1. I do, it's usually 12 years of practice to become a senior counsel but you should know that solicitors can apply for this too once they have been practising for 12 years. This comes back to the facts, opinions and lies distinction I was talking about you can read more about it to better inform yourself on the LSRA website.

2. Well if it's experience you're after - she has it in droves. Worked as a prosecutor, then the CSSO followed by a stint as the Chief Prosecution Solicitor in the DPP - on any analysis she's more than qualified.

3. Just because it was a huge achievement to finish secondary education then does not mean that it was more difficult to become a barrister. You have several more hoops to jump through to become a barrister today than you did in the 60s, 70s and 80s including but not limited to primary degrees, admissions tests to the Inns, and the Inns itself.

4. It's axiomatic every single DPP is going to be criticised for the cases they decide to prosecute and for those which they don't. I was pointing to the less workable and problematic legislative framework that Hamilton had to work with, I don't think you would find anything different in his approach if he had the same legislative tools at his disposal.

Again, I'm just pointing to the facts that the DPP is under-resourced and that it's a much more credible explanation than your sexist delusions.

And I stand my comments saying things like "another angry woman out of her depth" makes it easy to do so.

Curse These Metal Hands

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

I know it's an unusual approach around here, but generally, if I don't know much about a subject or an issue, I stay quiet about it.

Do you often post in threads where you know nothing about the topic being discussed? Or are you here specifically to drag it off topic? You could always read the article in the OP, that will fill you in in about 1 minute.

AndrewJRenko

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Do you often post in threads where you know nothing about the topic being discussed? Or are you here specifically to drag it off topic?

Where I see people making dramatic claims with no supporting evidence, yeah, I do post about those. The best way to shut me up is to show some evidence for those claims.

Curse These Metal Hands

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

Where I see people making dramatic claims with no supporting evidence, yeah, I do post about those. The best way to shut me up is to show some evidence for those claims.

Let's get back on topic.

"Mr Fox (87) was acquitted and the case dismissed after CCTV evidence showed he had not groped a woman in a bar when she asked for a selfie."

What's your opinion on this?

AndrewJRenko

Curse These Metal Hands wrote: »

Let's get back on topic.

"Mr Fox (87) was acquitted and the case dismissed after CCTV evidence showed he had not groped a woman in a bar when she asked for a selfie."

What's your opinion on this?

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?

Curse These Metal Hands

AndrewJRenko wrote: »

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

I have never seen a bias so glaringly obvious as this on boards.ie. You really can't just admit Sil Fox was wronged here.

I have no interest having an off topic discussion with you.

Ten of Swords

Thread has been getting progressively more derailed as time goes on, back on topic please

jimwallace197

Keto1456 wrote: »

1. I do, it's usually 12 years of practice to become a senior counsel but you should know that solicitors can apply for this too once they have been practising for 12 years. This comes back to the facts, opinions and lies distinction I was talking about you can read more about it to better inform yourself on the LSRA website.

2. Well if it's experience you're after - she has it in droves. Worked as a prosecutor, then the CSSO followed by a stint as the Chief Prosecution Solicitor in the DPP - on any analysis she's more than qualified.

3. Just because it was a huge achievement to finish secondary education then does not mean that it was more difficult to become a barrister. You have several more hoops to jump through to become a barrister today than you did in the 60s, 70s and 80s including but not limited to primary degrees, admissions tests to the Inns, and the Inns itself.

4. It's axiomatic every single DPP is going to be criticised for the cases they decide to prosecute and for those which they don't. I was pointing to the less workable and problematic legislative framework that Hamilton had to work with, I don't think you would find anything different in his approach if he had the same legislative tools at his disposal.

Again, I'm just pointing to the facts that the DPP is under-resourced and that it's a much more credible explanation than your sexist delusions.

And I stand my comments saying things like "another angry woman out of her depth" makes it easy to do so.

1. Yes, a solicitor can call themselves this after 12 years but I doubt too many care. This struck a nerve solicitor?? Sounds like serious insecurity.

2) She was in the office but not given the position of chief prosecution solicitor until many years after she joined. A bit like if you work in Supermacs long enough, you will have a chance at a managerial position unless you **** up. This and timing worked in her favour no doubt.

3) Honestly? are you in your twenties or thirties because dont even start in relation to that nonsense. Research a little bit of what it was like to get educated in this country in the 50s, 60's, 70's. No comparison to what it is like nowadays. They didnt even have electricity in alot of households.

4) That's complete conjecture. You dont have the first idea of how the previous DPP would have approached this case irrespective of what you learnt on your college course or not. And its highly likely he wouldnt have because I think all things considering, he had cop on which this current DPP doesnt have due to her sexist nature and blind hatred of men no doubt.

Again throwing comments at me like sexist delusions when I have made no such comments and again, I thanked this posters comment because he was able to see through the nonsense of this current DPP'S qualifications

jimwallace197

Things the current justice minister can do to prevent cases like this arising in the future.

1) Consequences for Detectives and staff of the office of the dpp in proceeding with these claims

2) Prosecutions for individuals who make false accusations of this nature. Custodial sentence of at least 3 years

3) Removal of immunity for detectives and the office of the DPP

4) Promotion of cases like Sil Fox in the media, prime slot on the LLS to explain how devastating it has been for him and his family.

5) Respect for men for in cases of this nature especially where obvious bias is prevalent.

Lets make things equal

...Ghost...

jimwallace197 wrote: »

Things the current justice minister can do to prevent cases like this arising in the future.

1) Consequences for Detectives and staff of the office of the dpp in proceeding with these claims

2) Prosecutions for individuals who make false accusations of this nature. Custodial sentence of at least 3 years

3) Removal of immunity for detectives and the office of the DPP

4) Promotion of cases like Sil Fox in the media, prime slot on the LLS to explain how devastating it has been for him and his family.

5) Respect for men for in cases of this nature especially where obvious bias is prevalent.

Lets make things equal

Ah stop it. You're making too much sense

Imagine holding people accountable when they don't do their job and make a balls of it. We just might have careful public servants who don't carelessly destroy peoples lives.

fantaiscool

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 agree with you here. The rugby lads were still seen as guilty. Isn't that where the ibelieveher has tag started?

...Ghost...

fantaiscool wrote: »

I agree with you here. The rugby lads were still seen as guilty. Isn't that where the ibelieveher has tag started?

Yeah, that's where it started. What amazed me was the amount of idiots marching in Dublin and telling the media that the justice system was a disgrace and needs to change, all the while seemingly ignoring the fact that the trial was in the UK. A few commented on whatsapp messages and while they were distasteful, I've seen much worse from women I have worked with in the past. Messages in groups are easily taken out of context and do not necessarily reflect the individuals within the group.



They are right about the legal system, but not in the way they think. Jackson and Olding were dragged through the mud and their names cannot be said without associating them with the rape trial. Their lives will never be the same. They should have been afforded the same anonymity of the accuser as to do otherwise causes irreparable damage to innocent men.