Paddy Jackson apology

[AZOffaly]

Someone who believes in equal rights for women, and someone who lobbies for womens right laws etc?

[haranguerer]

I know that seafoid. Rape, barring obvious physical evidence of a struggle, or witnesses, is largely one person's word versus another. But surely the threat of the court case and punishment are some sort of deterrent? I can't see who lowering the punishment for it would help in any way. Rape is one of the most traumatic crimes a woman can endure, and is about the power and domination over that woman. To not view it as "spectacularly violent crime" is abhorrent to me.

You're missing the point completely. When a case of rape doesn't fit into the extreme that it is associated with, as it usually doesn't, there is an unwillingness to convict. Breaking it down, and having 'degrees' of rape as such would allow greater clarity and make it easier to convict. The punishment would be appropriate to fit the degree of the crime. If you don't see a difference between (on two extremes) someone dragging a woman up an alleyway and forcibly raping them, and someone taking a condom off during previously consensual sex, and see both as 'spectacularly violent' and deserving of the same treatment and punishment, then you're blinded by something.

It isn't always, or even often, the right thing to shout for harsher treatment of perpetrators in a misguided and likely unhelpful act of solidarity with victims. We need to think about all aspects of these crimes and how best to punish, rehabilitate, help the victim.

[AZOffaly]

I know that seafoid. Rape, barring obvious physical evidence of a struggle, or witnesses, is largely one person's word versus another. But surely the threat of the court case and punishment are some sort of deterrent? I can't see who lowering the punishment for it would help in any way. Rape is one of the most traumatic crimes a woman can endure, and is about the power and domination over that woman. To not view it as "spectacularly violent crime" is abhorrent to me.

You're missing the point completely. When a case of rape doesn't fit into the extreme that it is associated with, as it usually doesn't, there is an unwillingness to convict. Breaking it down, and having 'degrees' of rape as such would allow greater clarity and make it easier to convict. The punishment would be appropriate to fit the degree of the crime. If you don't see a difference between (on two extremes) someone dragging a woman up an alleyway and forcibly raping them, and someone taking a condom off during previously consensual sex, and see both as 'spectacularly violent' and deserving of the same treatment and punishment, then you're blinded by something.

It isn't always, or even often, the right thing to shout for harsher treatment of perpetrators in a misguided and likely unhelpful act of solidarity with victims. We need to think about all aspects of these crimes and how best to punish, rehabilitate, help the victim.

Fair enough, that's a very good point.

[haranguerer]

Someone who believes in equal rights for women, and someone who lobbies for womens right laws etc?

I don't see that as inconsistent with Germaine Greers point at all. She has long being a bastion of (militant) feminism, but has become unpopular with the social media generation for having her own views, and for usually not joining in the public outcries she may overtly have been expected to.

A lot of what she always says is thought provoking, sometimes thats the only reason she says it, and while this is exaggerated for effect, it does raise valid points on what rape actually is, and the differences in how it is perceived, and the difficulty that gap causes in society.

[Milltown Row2]

Someone who believes in equal rights for women, and someone who lobbies for womens right laws etc?

I don't see that as inconsistent with Germaine Greers point at all. She has long being a bastion of (militant) feminism, but has become unpopular with the social media generation for having her own views, and for usually not joining in the public outcries she may overtly have been expected to.

A lot of what she always says is thought provoking, sometimes thats the only reason she says it, and while this is exaggerated for effect, it does raise valid points on what rape actually is, and the differences in how it is perceived, and the difficulty that gap causes in society.

And based on that, the rugby lads would more than likely been convicted of something.

Believe it or not, I believe they were guilty of possibly using the girl for their own enjoyment and in hindsight they also believe it, but with the drink in and the craic mighty they (because of other exploits) thought she was willing, and consented (in parts) to the sex..

What Greer has said "lazy, careless and insensitive" is this case completly

[seafoid]

Someone who believes in equal rights for women, and someone who lobbies for womens right laws etc?

I don't see that as inconsistent with Germaine Greers point at all. She has long being a bastion of (militant) feminism, but has become unpopular with the social media generation for having her own views, and for usually not joining in the public outcries she may overtly have been expected to.

A lot of what she always says is thought provoking, sometimes thats the only reason she says it, and while this is exaggerated for effect, it does raise valid points on what rape actually is, and the differences in how it is perceived, and the difficulty that gap causes in society.

And based on that, the rugby lads would more than likely been convicted of something.

Believe it or not, I believe they were guilty of possibly using the girl for their own enjoyment and in hindsight they also believe it, but with the drink in and the craic mighty they (because of other exploits) thought she was willing, and consented (in parts) to the sex..

What Greer has said "lazy, careless and insensitive" is this case completly

I would agree, MR. Lazy, careless, pissed as a fart

[AZOffaly]

Someone who believes in equal rights for women, and someone who lobbies for womens right laws etc?

I don't see that as inconsistent with Germaine Greers point at all. She has long being a bastion of (militant) feminism, but has become unpopular with the social media generation for having her own views, and for usually not joining in the public outcries she may overtly have been expected to.

A lot of what she always says is thought provoking, sometimes thats the only reason she says it, and while this is exaggerated for effect, it does raise valid points on what rape actually is, and the differences in how it is perceived, and the difficulty that gap causes in society.

Yep, as above, very valid point. It does, however, just seem incongruous to me that such a horrible crime (albeit maybe not necessarily a violent one as you say) would be spoken about in such a fashion. However, as you say, it's probably a nuanced point she is making.

[seafoid]

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/may/30/germaine-greer-calls-for-punishment-for-to-be-reduced

Germaine Greer has called for the lowering of punishment for rape and said society should not see it as a "spectacularly violent crime" but instead view it more as "lazy, careless and insensitive".

She suggested that a fitting sentence for the offence might be 200 hours' community service and perhaps an "r" tattoo on the rapist's hand, arm or cheek.

Speaking at the Hay literary festival, the feminist academic argued that rape is rampant in society and the legal system cannot cope with it because it always comes down to the issue of consent, with the victims becoming little more than "bits of evidence".

She's a feminist saying that? I know she's "controversial" but what is she thinking?

She is a feminist. Her angle is that the system doesn't work. After the PJ case I would agree. If the sanction was lower a lot of mess could have been avoided. How do you prove consent? And look what the lads lost.

The thing is that Jackson was charged with a lesser offence with a lesser sanction and was found not guilty. This is something that has been completely ignored by the people with their agendas. Jackson was acquitted unanimously of sexual assault. The mechanics of the 'sexual assault' were not disputed. The area of consent was and the jury found in favour of Jackson as they believed that she consented to the interaction. Germaine Greer's point is lost in the fact that it is not the level
Of the severity of the crime or punishment that is wrong here but in my opinion the fault lies absolutely with inadequate police investigation and an open system of trial whereby victim and accused can be named legally and outside of the law by other means. Anonymity till conviction is not ideal but may be the best solution of a bad set of options.

A lot of your points areNI specific. Naming suspects during the trial and opening a polarised social media debate is not best practice.
Greer was talking about the system with lawyers arguing over consent and victims ignored.
Does the threat of a long sentence act as a deterrant ? I don't know. Maybe it contributes to the number of stalemates.

[magpie seanie]

Good to see Olding get a club, talented player.  Wonder who Jackson will sign for?

Might be the first time Olding has been called talented. As bang average a club player as you're likely to find. It's telling he only got a job in the French second tier and that was because his Ulster buddy was taking over the club and was ok with brushing his actions off the field under the carpet.

A versatile back, who played at out-half, centre, and full-back, Stuart Olding represented Ireland at both Under 18 and Under 20 level

He made his debut for Ulster as a substitute against Leinster in December 2011, but just over a year later he established himself as a member of the senior squad. He scored his first try for Ulster, against Glasgow, in February 2013 and Olding scored four further tries in quick succession.

Man-of-the-match awards against the Dragons and Connacht soon followed and Olding was regarded as one of the most exciting young players in Irish Rugby

Average? #Syferusknowsfuckall

You did a good job of showing your incredible level of fanboyism for a likely rapist and at best a very lucky and scummy individual.

He still is an absolutely average and replaceable club level player. The big clubs had no interest in his supposedly predigious talents for some odd reason. Jackson is a limited player too but at least he was at a more valuable position.

likely rapist?

Remember, she did accuse him of rape first, before changing her story.

Stop showing yourself up Hound.

How can you have not the good sense to see your own pattern of victim blaming in this thread?

Do you disagree with the fact she accused Olding of vaginal rape and then changed her story?

I would be happy to be corrected if I said something false or mistaken. But I made an accurate statement and didn't blame anyone.  If you want to correct something I said, please do. I you want to make personal statements about me, please refrain. I'm not interested, and neither is anybody else.

Yaaaaaa. Blame the girl. It's all her fault. 

That's a pretty childish response Seanie!
If someone has an alternative viewpoint, start saying "blame the victim".

You probably won't answer this, but here's a question for you:

Is it ok for people on this board to call someone a "likely rapist" on the basis that a woman accused a man of rape, but then changed their mind and then accused them of a lesser offence? And bearing in mind the man was acquitted of the lesser charge by every single juror who has sat through the whole case.

Firstly - the way you have presented your argument is skewed greatly against the alleged victim. She didn't "change her mind". She corrected the detail of her version of events when giving her police statement. Loads of evidence out there and possibly even given in court to explain why people who have undergone traumatic events (clearly she was traumatised per independent evidence) can make errors like this (and remember it was a conversation with a doctor......not a statement). To suggest she "changed her mind" is implying she made the story up. So it's "victim blaming in my book and I'd say that's an interpretation a lot of people would make. I wouldn't have expected it from you to be fair.

Secondly - from reading your posts I do not think you are factually correct and/or do not understand exactly what rape means. Olding was charged with rape. I do not think he was charged with a lesser charge as you allege. Her version of events was that he raped her.

Finally - I wouldn't personally use the term "likely rapist" and wouldn't have seen it only for people quoting the person who wrote it. Even though I personally suspect on the balance of probabilities this was a rape I accept there wasn't enough evidence to convict and accept the accused in this case were found not guilty. But that's merely an opinion which counts for little.

But you accept the courts/jury's decision that in all likelyhood, based on all the evidence heard in court, it is more than likely he didnt rape her, and moved on?

Seriously? Have you any comprehension of what actually happened in that court case, or any criminal case for that matter?

Do you? were you sitting in on the case daily? Did you hear all the evidence or just what was reported? In a criminal case the defense and prosecution present their evidence and the jury go with the evidence presented and decide, I'd assume.. unless that has changed  and trial by media decides the outcome..

You or I dont know what happened that night, nor would I jump to conclusions either, the jury are best placed to decide on this and with the direction of the judge came to a verdict, it never claimed they were innocent it just that there wasnt enough evidence to suggest they did, in fact rape her, more so she was a willing partner.

That won't stop people thinking they did or didn't and thats fine, mud sticks and all that.. but let it go

My point was that after all we've discussed I'd have thought you understood what "beyond reasonable doubt" meant. I.E. - not "in all likelihood" or "more likely than not".

I regret that we've argued on this point. Your subsequent post is one I pretty much agree with to be honest.

[bennydorano]

Paddy might be getting the start at Brive too https://twitter.com/IndoSport/status/1002671176320258048?s=19

[David McKeown]

I know that seafoid. Rape, barring obvious physical evidence of a struggle, or witnesses, is largely one person's word versus another. But surely the threat of the court case and punishment are some sort of deterrent? I can't see who lowering the punishment for it would help in any way. Rape is one of the most traumatic crimes a woman can endure, and is about the power and domination over that woman. To not view it as "spectacularly violent crime" is abhorrent to me.

You're missing the point completely. When a case of rape doesn't fit into the extreme that it is associated with, as it usually doesn't, there is an unwillingness to convict. Breaking it down, and having 'degrees' of rape as such would allow greater clarity and make it easier to convict. The punishment would be appropriate to fit the degree of the crime. If you don't see a difference between (on two extremes) someone dragging a woman up an alleyway and forcibly raping them, and someone taking a condom off during previously consensual sex, and see both as 'spectacularly violent' and deserving of the same treatment and punishment, then you're blinded by something.

It isn't always, or even often, the right thing to shout for harsher treatment of perpetrators in a misguided and likely unhelpful act of solidarity with victims. We need to think about all aspects of these crimes and how best to punish, rehabilitate, help the victim.

Sorry is there any evidence that when rape isn't violent juries are more likely to acquit?  Juries are directed by judges on a weekly basis if the three elements of the offence are there then you convict. They are told to ignore what they perceive rape to be and focus on the definition provided by the Judge. If we think juries can't do that then the idea of introducing degrees of rape to secure higher conviction rates is incredibly troubling.

There's a few things that have been mentioned on here that stick in my craw and for the final time I preface this with I wasn't at the trial and I am basing this entirely on media reports which as I experienced last Friday are often very inaccurate. Firstly the PPS presented an exposure case against Blaine McIlroy. The complainants evidence against him was well documented. If the jury believed that evidence then he would have been convicted. Owing to how he ran his defence he didn't have the defence of reasonable belief she consented. Therefore the jury simply didn't believe her. It's not a case of they believed her but there was enough evidence. In his case believing her was entirely enough evidence. They didn't. If they didn't believe her about that part of her evidence the public are entirely entitled to ask what else didn't they believe her about.

Two when it comes to sentencing there already are degrees of rape, life is the maximum very rarely used sentencing withheld for only the most extreme of cases for repeated offenders. Spousal rape for example has a starting point after trial of 4 years custody I think. Tying sentences hands with categories of rape is in my opinion counter productive.

On the idea of annonimity by law the complaintant has this for life. The accused does not because having considered in great depth the pros and cons of such an order it was decided that the deterrent that naming the accused brought outweighed the benefits to society of annonimity. It was at the time and remains a knife edge decision but for Justice to be done it must also be seen to be done. 

Finally the comment they are likely rapists is defamatory and should be removed in my opinion to protect both the posters who have used it and the board in general.

[omaghjoe]

I know that seafoid. Rape, barring obvious physical evidence of a struggle, or witnesses, is largely one person's word versus another. But surely the threat of the court case and punishment are some sort of deterrent? I can't see who lowering the punishment for it would help in any way. Rape is one of the most traumatic crimes a woman can endure, and is about the power and domination over that woman. To not view it as "spectacularly violent crime" is abhorrent to me.

You're missing the point completely. When a case of rape doesn't fit into the extreme that it is associated with, as it usually doesn't, there is an unwillingness to convict. Breaking it down, and having 'degrees' of rape as such would allow greater clarity and make it easier to convict. The punishment would be appropriate to fit the degree of the crime. If you don't see a difference between (on two extremes) someone dragging a woman up an alleyway and forcibly raping them, and someone taking a condom off during previously consensual sex, and see both as 'spectacularly violent' and deserving of the same treatment and punishment, then you're blinded by something.

It isn't always, or even often, the right thing to shout for harsher treatment of perpetrators in a misguided and likely unhelpful act of solidarity with victims. We need to think about all aspects of these crimes and how best to punish, rehabilitate, help the victim.

Sorry is there any evidence that when rape isn't violent juries are more likely to acquit?  Juries are directed by judges on a weekly basis if the three elements of the offence are there then you convict. They are told to ignore what they perceive rape to be and focus on the definition provided by the Judge. If we think juries can't do that then the idea of introducing degrees of rape to secure higher conviction rates is incredibly troubling.

There's a few things that have been mentioned on here that stick in my craw and for the final time I preface this with I wasn't at the trial and I am basing this entirely on media reports which as I experienced last Friday are often very inaccurate. Firstly the PPS presented an exposure case against Blaine McIlroy. The complainants evidence against him was well documented. If the jury believed that evidence then he would have been convicted. Owing to how he ran his defence he didn't have the defence of reasonable belief she consented. Therefore the jury simply didn't believe her. It's not a case of they believed her but there was enough evidence. In his case believing her was entirely enough evidence. They didn't. If they didn't believe her about that part of her evidence the public are entirely entitled to ask what else didn't they believe her about.

Two when it comes to sentencing there already are degrees of rape, life is the maximum very rarely used sentencing withheld for only the most extreme of cases for repeated offenders. Spousal rape for example has a starting point after trial of 4 years custody I think. Tying sentences hands with categories of rape is in my opinion counter productive.

On the idea of annonimity by law the complaintant has this for life. The accused does not because having considered in great depth the pros and cons of such an order it was decided that the deterrent that naming the accused brought outweighed the benefits to society of annonimity. It was at the time and remains a knife edge decision but for Justice to be done it must also be seen to be done. 

Finally the comment they are likely rapists is defamatory and should be removed in my opinion to protect both the posters who have used it and the board in general.

Hmm... maybe we should forward it to KRW Law... how are they getting on with Aodhán Ó Riordáin?

[David McKeown]

I've no idea but I know there's plenty of defamation cases go unreported every year

[Syferus]

I know that seafoid. Rape, barring obvious physical evidence of a struggle, or witnesses, is largely one person's word versus another. But surely the threat of the court case and punishment are some sort of deterrent? I can't see who lowering the punishment for it would help in any way. Rape is one of the most traumatic crimes a woman can endure, and is about the power and domination over that woman. To not view it as "spectacularly violent crime" is abhorrent to me.

You're missing the point completely. When a case of rape doesn't fit into the extreme that it is associated with, as it usually doesn't, there is an unwillingness to convict. Breaking it down, and having 'degrees' of rape as such would allow greater clarity and make it easier to convict. The punishment would be appropriate to fit the degree of the crime. If you don't see a difference between (on two extremes) someone dragging a woman up an alleyway and forcibly raping them, and someone taking a condom off during previously consensual sex, and see both as 'spectacularly violent' and deserving of the same treatment and punishment, then you're blinded by something.

It isn't always, or even often, the right thing to shout for harsher treatment of perpetrators in a misguided and likely unhelpful act of solidarity with victims. We need to think about all aspects of these crimes and how best to punish, rehabilitate, help the victim.

Sorry is there any evidence that when rape isn't violent juries are more likely to acquit?  Juries are directed by judges on a weekly basis if the three elements of the offence are there then you convict. They are told to ignore what they perceive rape to be and focus on the definition provided by the Judge. If we think juries can't do that then the idea of introducing degrees of rape to secure higher conviction rates is incredibly troubling.

There's a few things that have been mentioned on here that stick in my craw and for the final time I preface this with I wasn't at the trial and I am basing this entirely on media reports which as I experienced last Friday are often very inaccurate. Firstly the PPS presented an exposure case against Blaine McIlroy. The complainants evidence against him was well documented. If the jury believed that evidence then he would have been convicted. Owing to how he ran his defence he didn't have the defence of reasonable belief she consented. Therefore the jury simply didn't believe her. It's not a case of they believed her but there was enough evidence. In his case believing her was entirely enough evidence. They didn't. If they didn't believe her about that part of her evidence the public are entirely entitled to ask what else didn't they believe her about.

Two when it comes to sentencing there already are degrees of rape, life is the maximum very rarely used sentencing withheld for only the most extreme of cases for repeated offenders. Spousal rape for example has a starting point after trial of 4 years custody I think. Tying sentences hands with categories of rape is in my opinion counter productive.

On the idea of annonimity by law the complaintant has this for life. The accused does not because having considered in great depth the pros and cons of such an order it was decided that the deterrent that naming the accused brought outweighed the benefits to society of annonimity. It was at the time and remains a knife edge decision but for Justice to be done it must also be seen to be done. 

Finally the comment they are likely rapists is defamatory and should be removed in my opinion to protect both the posters who have used it and the board in general.

Hush, dear child. I've generally avoided engaging you with your see-through attempts to disguise your personal opinions in legal advice, but it's getting silly at this stage.

[Milltown Row2]

 

Well his legal advise is a million times better than your cut and paste google stuff 

Shown up every time ya muppet