The ulster rugby trial

[johnneycool]

As much is being made of the girl who entered the room and what her testimony reveals I think Paddy may be on a sticky wicket if what the girls says is true, that she and Paddy had consensual kissing in the bedroom, Paddy tried his luck and was brushed off by the girl who proceeded to go downstairs.
It was only then when she went to leave and realised her handbag was up in the room and went to get it that Paddy tried it on the second time in what she describes as a very forceful manner.

I'm sure the prosecution will go after him on this. If she didn't consent to sex the first time, what would have made Paddy think that the second time that she had?

[gallsman]

He was asked directly whether Best had consulted with him before attending the trial and be refused to answer. It's a simple yes or no question

[armaghniac]

What is the actual law in terms of what is deemed consensual when alcohol has been consumed. I'm not talking about if the woman is paralytic which is clear, but if the woman is "just" drunk. i.e does something she would never do when sober? I would say a lot of people on here have had a few "encounters" that would not have happened if both parties had been sober.

There is a difference between some drink taken which reduces inhibitions and might lead someone to do something which they would not do at another time and an amount of drink taken which means that the person cannot defend themselves or articulate their wishes in the matter.

[Il Bomber Destro]

Not surprised this sort of carryon exists within Irish rugby.

What's been heard so far does not look very good at all for the defendants.

Not sure how you can say that, but then again rationale is limited with a lot of posters in these types of threads.

There is precedent here.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2385270/Ireland-rugby-sex-scandal--threesome-Dublin-night-out.html

[Dinny Breen]

In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.

Don't be ridiculous

Of course he could comment on it but, if he criticised either of them for doing so, the defence/prosecution could use his status as Irish head coach to paint any criticism as implying something else.

If people want this case to stick and not collapse Schmidt did the right thing.

Stupid question to asking him to comment on a live trial. Journalists can be stupid.

This is obviously too close to home for you Dinny as there's nothing ridiculous about it. As for the whole "could prejudice the case" spiel, we're perfectly entitled to discuss it and debate the merits of the case

He was not asked about a live trial, he was asked about the decision of his captain and another player to attend said trial. It was a perfectly valid question from a journalism perspective and, as I said, one he completely whiffed on.

No Schmidt is a senior figure in the organisation that employs Henderson, Best and both the accused in a "Live" Trial. Anything he says can be misconstrued by either the defence or the prosecution, so when he says it's a legal matter he is right. If people want justice then asking Schmidt stupid questions that could lead to a collapse is not helpful and pretty stupid.

Henderson and Best were there in a private capacity which is quite frankly their business, what makes the public think they have an entitled to question people supporting their friends when their friends have not been found guilty of anything. This isn't the same as Kimmage, Cusack and Walsh supporting the pedophile Humphries after he was found guilty.

[trileacman]

There was nothing wrong with best and Henderson attending. It's only a problem if you've already condemned the accused as guilty which so many on here have done.

[TabClear]

What is the actual law in terms of what is deemed consensual when alcohol has been consumed. I'm not talking about if the woman is paralytic which is clear, but if the woman is "just" drunk. i.e does something she would never do when sober? I would say a lot of people on here have had a few "encounters" that would not have happened if both parties had been sober.

There is a difference between some drink taken which reduces inhibitions and might lead someone to do something which they would not do at another time and an amount of drink taken which means that the person cannot defend themselves or articulate their wishes in the matter.

I suppose thats what I'm getting at. My reading of your post is that it is pretty similar to mine, i.e. if one party is paralytic drunk its fairly clear but if someone does something they later regret because they are drunk thats different. The problem juries are going to have is that how do you define the line between the two from a legal perspective as its so subjective and dependent on individual temperament and tolerance to alcohol. I'm not implying anything into this particular case by the way, I have no idea if alcohol played a part or not, just pointing out one of the major issues as I see it in cases like this.

[Orior]

There was nothing wrong with best and Henderson attending. It's only a problem if you've already condemned the accused as guilty which so many on here have done.

Mickey Harte would probably agree.

[HiMucker]

In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.

Don't be ridiculous

Of course he could comment on it but, if he criticised either of them for doing so, the defence/prosecution could use his status as Irish head coach to paint any criticism as implying something else.

If people want this case to stick and not collapse Schmidt did the right thing.

Stupid question to asking him to comment on a live trial. Journalists can be stupid.

This is obviously too close to home for you Dinny as there's nothing ridiculous about it. As for the whole "could prejudice the case" spiel, we're perfectly entitled to discuss it and debate the merits of the case

He was not asked about a live trial, he was asked about the decision of his captain and another player to attend said trial. It was a perfectly valid question from a journalism perspective and, as I said, one he completely whiffed on.

No Schmidt is a senior figure in the organisation that employs Henderson, Best and both the accused in a "Live" Trial. Anything he says can be misconstrued by either the defence or the prosecution, so when he says it's a legal matter he is right. If people want justice then asking Schmidt stupid questions that could lead to a collapse is not helpful and pretty stupid.

Henderson and Best were there in a private capacity which is quite frankly their business, what makes the public think they have an entitled to question people supporting their friends when their friends have not been found guilty of anything. This isn't the same as Kimmage, Cusack and Walsh supporting the pedophile Humphries after he was found guilty.

I actually think yous are both right.  The journalist was perfectly entitled to ask the question, such is the public interest, and Schmidt was perfectly entitled to say it was legal matter and he is not discussing it.  I think that was the right way to handle it.

[GJL]

Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?

[magpie seanie]

In my view, they were perfectly entitled to attend if they want but, at best, it was highly ill advised, particularly ahead of the match on Saturday.

The IRFU and Schmidt have whiffed badly on it.

Don't be ridiculous

Of course he could comment on it but, if he criticised either of them for doing so, the defence/prosecution could use his status as Irish head coach to paint any criticism as implying something else.

If people want this case to stick and not collapse Schmidt did the right thing.

Stupid question to asking him to comment on a live trial. Journalists can be stupid.

This is obviously too close to home for you Dinny as there's nothing ridiculous about it. As for the whole "could prejudice the case" spiel, we're perfectly entitled to discuss it and debate the merits of the case

He was not asked about a live trial, he was asked about the decision of his captain and another player to attend said trial. It was a perfectly valid question from a journalism perspective and, as I said, one he completely whiffed on.

No Schmidt is a senior figure in the organisation that employs Henderson, Best and both the accused in a "Live" Trial. Anything he says can be misconstrued by either the defence or the prosecution, so when he says it's a legal matter he is right. If people want justice then asking Schmidt stupid questions that could lead to a collapse is not helpful and pretty stupid.

Henderson and Best were there in a private capacity which is quite frankly their business, what makes the public think they have an entitled to question people supporting their friends when their friends have not been found guilty of anything. This isn't the same as Kimmage, Cusack and Walsh supporting the pedophile Humphries after he was found guilty.

I'm sorry but you can't have it both ways. Best is the captain of the Ireland mens rugby team, the captain of Ulster, the captain of the two accused in their professional lives. In the week of a huge 6 nations game I think it shows amazingly poor judgement at best.

Schmidt was probably gagged as there's huge paranoia over trials collapsing etc. So while I think he probably could have said something I wouldn't beat him up for not doing it. What I would take issue with is (a) him and the IRFU giving permission or (b) him and the IRFU not anticipating this happening and stopping it.

This is regardless of whether you think they're guilty or not. They've been stood down from playing while this goes on, public displays of support should not be forthcoming either.

[Dinny Breen]

I don't disagree with the poor judgement but Best is not responsible in any capacity, unlike Schmidt, for the employment of Jackson and Olding, Captain is a role within a team not a senior manager or even a line-manager.

Anyway I hope justice is served in court and not on a kangaroo court.

[Orior]

Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?

She didn't connect going into the rugby player's bedroom with danger.

[gallsman]

Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?

She didn't connect going into the rugby player's bedroom with danger.

Jesus f**king wept.

[screenexile]

Whatever happens, it is the end of the career of two or three rugby players. In fact, I have no idea where they will get work, and will probably have to emigrate.

Add a stupid girl to stupid drunk rugby players and the result is that everyone looses except the lawyers. Very sad.

Why is she 'stupid'?

She didn't connect going into the rugby player's bedroom with danger.

George Hook is back so. . .