The ulster rugby trial

[seafoid]

Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

Agree with your assessment MR2 but while his attendance at court was a defence tactic, I think it is poor judgement from Best to offer a character reference.  If they're acquitted he's not needed but he's already received heavy criticism and he must have known this would be a high profile trial.  I would think if they're found guilty Best leaves himself open to criticism for giving a character reference for a rapist(s).

If we take this thread as being representative of public opinion, if Jackson and Olding are convicted you wouldn't want to be within a million miles of giving them a character reference!!

A character reference may be used to mitigate a sentence. It is not a social media popularity contest. Say he is guilty.   PJ may be quite a decent person. Maybe this was really out of character. Or maybe he is a danger to women. The character reference can help in sentencing appropriately.

[Syferus]

Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

Agree with your assessment MR2 but while his attendance at court was a defence tactic, I think it is poor judgement from Best to offer a character reference.  If they're acquitted he's not needed but he's already received heavy criticism and he must have known this would be a high profile trial.  I would think if they're found guilty Best leaves himself open to criticism for giving a character reference for a rapist(s).

If we take this thread as being representative of public opinion, if Jackson and Olding are convicted you wouldn't want to be within a million miles of giving them a character reference!!

A character reference may be used to mitigate a sentence. It is not a social media popularity contest. Say he is guilty.   PJ may be quite a decent person. Maybe this was really out of character. Or maybe he is a danger to women. The character reference can help in sentencing appropriately.

I can't beleive I have to say it, but being a decent person and being a rapist are mutually exclusive.

[Franko]

Why exactly would she lie?

Mind bending stuff here.

The prosecution legal team have definitely missed a trick in not employing this strategy. 

[Milltown Row2]

Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial 

[GetOverTheBar]

Why exactly would she lie?

Mind bending stuff here.

The prosecution legal team have definitely missed a trick in not employing this strategy. 

[Syferus]

Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you've got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old "let's see what happens" spiel. Well, it doesn't look like that's what you're doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it's the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..

[Tony Baloney]

Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.

You keeping following this line even though there are many cases (in the last few months!) of men who had been falsely accused of rape. It happens and as the complainant is granted lifelong anonymity it is the man who suffers. Look up Liam Allan, Solomon Makele, Connor Fitzgerald etc and you're only scratching the surface.

[seafoid]

Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

Agree with your assessment MR2 but while his attendance at court was a defence tactic, I think it is poor judgement from Best to offer a character reference.  If they're acquitted he's not needed but he's already received heavy criticism and he must have known this would be a high profile trial.  I would think if they're found guilty Best leaves himself open to criticism for giving a character reference for a rapist(s).

If we take this thread as being representative of public opinion, if Jackson and Olding are convicted you wouldn't want to be within a million miles of giving them a character reference!!

A character reference may be used to mitigate a sentence. It is not a social media popularity contest. Say he is guilty.   PJ may be quite a decent person. Maybe this was really out of character. Or maybe he is a danger to women. The character reference can help in sentencing appropriately.

I can't beleive I have to say it, but being a decent person and being a rapist are mutually exclusive.

And if he is guilty and he denies it to the end without any remorse he will get a longer sentence.

[Syferus]

Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

Agree with your assessment MR2 but while his attendance at court was a defence tactic, I think it is poor judgement from Best to offer a character reference.  If they're acquitted he's not needed but he's already received heavy criticism and he must have known this would be a high profile trial.  I would think if they're found guilty Best leaves himself open to criticism for giving a character reference for a rapist(s).

If we take this thread as being representative of public opinion, if Jackson and Olding are convicted you wouldn't want to be within a million miles of giving them a character reference!!

A character reference may be used to mitigate a sentence. It is not a social media popularity contest. Say he is guilty.   PJ may be quite a decent person. Maybe this was really out of character. Or maybe he is a danger to women. The character reference can help in sentencing appropriately.

I can't beleive I have to say it, but being a decent person and being a rapist are mutually exclusive.

And if he is guilty and he denies it to the end without any remorse he will get a longer sentence.

Most rapists rely on how hard rape cases are to try when they decide how to plea. The punishment for being found guilty and having denied it should be more than it currently is.

[macdanger2]

Agreed on most points there MS, but its only poor judgement should Jackson and co are found guilty? And not that you would be betting on such a trial but if i was betting on this based on whats been thrown about I'd be hedging my bets towards guilty.

What quotes I have found from this girl in relation to the questions that shes been asked have been well answered with a degree of confidence also, considering the serious nature of whats at hand and whats she's been through and going through (if she's tell the truth that is)

Its certainly a huge talking point in most work places

No, it's poor judgement full stop. It was going to create a sh1t storm, as such a recognisable figure he was being used by the defence to send a message to the jury plus the pure rubbish explanation.......it was very poor judgement.

Yeah, extremely poor judgement regardless of the outcome of the trial

[Franko]

Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you've got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old "let's see what happens" spiel. Well, it doesn't look like that's what you're doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it's the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..

Brilliant!

You do realise that the fact that there's a trial going on at all insinuates that the alleged victim may be lying!

Your reputation for making a show of yourself on this board precedes you but, hats off, this is some of your best work.

[Milltown Row2]

Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you've got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old "let's see what happens" spiel. Well, it doesn't look like that's what you're doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it's the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..

Hmm? I've been called out? You numpty where have I personally laid blame? You on the other hand have been caught out with examples and have yet to respond to it! saying it's the exception rather than the rule just shows you up even more!

[Frank_The_Tank]

Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you've got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old "let's see what happens" spiel. Well, it doesn't look like that's what you're doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it's the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..

Hmm? I've been called out? You numpty where have I personally laid blame? You on the other hand have been caught out with examples and have yet to respond to it! saying it's the exception rather than the rule just shows you up even more!

I think he must have used the ignore function on me...lol.  when challenged showed up to be a clown on numerous occasions.  I daresay if they are convicted guilty his first thoughts won't be off the girl but it will be straight on here to pontificate about being right.

[Frank_The_Tank]

Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you've got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old "let's see what happens" spiel. Well, it doesn't look like that's what you're doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it's the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..

So certain sayings like the one you quoted above you are happy to stand over but the old innocent until proven guilty is just a cliche.  Your more confused than a blind lesbian at a fish market.

[Avondhu star]

Why exactly would she lie?

Why exactly would Jackson lie?

Because he's trying to deny what he's charged with?

If you believe or even remotely think the victim is lying it follows that you must have a very good reason why she'd put herself through this trial in the first place.

Victim? surely she's a victim if they are guilty? You've already convicted them? again I havent made a judgement on this, not my job, nor do i have the expertise to work my way through all the information you have on the case to form a real opinion.. As someone posted earlier, women have been shown to lie in court that they have been raped, but you've obviously missed that one..

Let the professionals do their job and see what happens eh?

Just in case you missed it:

https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jan/19/oxford-student-case-oliver-mears-dropped-days-before-trial

So basically you've got called on insinuating the victim may be lying but when you realised the implications of that you had no good answers for why that would be the case and you tried to walk it back with the same old "let's see what happens" spiel. Well, it doesn't look like that's what you're doing so maybe take your own advice first?

To your link (from someone else) - you do know the saying that it's the exception that proves the rule, right? Hmm..

So certain sayings like the one you quoted above you are happy to stand over but the old innocent until proven guilty is just a cliche.  Your more confused than a blind lesbian at a fish market.

I take it that you are not chairwoman of the local feminist collective