The ulster rugby trial

[gallsman]

The old approach of pretending the justice system, particularly for sexual assault and rape cases, is infallible and the arbiter of truth (it only serves that role in a legal sense, which some here would do well to remember is a very narrow description) is far worse than highlighting the inherent biases that female rape victims face.

Nobody, literally nobody, has suggested this is the case. You appear to believe you're some sort of bastion of truth and righteousness.

It was a valid rhetorical question in its context. It's strange you seem to think it's some brilliant gotcha to bring it up as a reply to what I just posted because it's a non-sequitur at best.

No, it wasn't. It was a laughably transparent attempt to put controversial words in someone else's mouth.

I'm not a juror on this trial so I can say whatever I damn well please and it doesn't prejudice anything. I'm not even a citizen of the country the trial is taking place in. Suggesting that me pointing out the pathetic apologist stances of some posters is causing justice to fail is probably a top tier nonsense line in a thread filled to the brim with them.

I see you've failed to understand my post and, in your rabid dog-like rush to respond, have shown once again that you've no interest in justice as a holistic concept, the rights of women or society holding people accountable for their actions - you simply want these lads, in this case done.

The most hilarious aspect of it all is that you appear to think that you, and only you, are capable of looking at this critically, or by applying some consideration and intellect. You're just a complete windbag.

[gallsman]

Its the only system they have, had they your system then there would be a lot of innocent people in jail

That's not good enough either. By that logic, an incapable number wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice over the years could be written off by "it's the best system we have"

[magpie seanie]

On the balance of things, I think we'd be a lot worse off as a society if people refrained from speaking their mind on things they clearly have an issue with. If it looks like a duck etc then just f**king call it a duck and don't be afraid to call out anyone protesting otherwise. In my case, I think the dry humping suggestion so laughably implausible that I'm not even going to consider it as a possibility. To my mind, it is a creation of someone who has already decided the lads aren't guilty, or that they don't want them to be guilty, and so has come up with an explanation, no matter how daft, to explain away (in their head) what Dara Florence saw.

That, of course, is not carte blanche to dismiss any and all opposing views as unworthy of consideration or discourse, the way our esteemed sheep shagging colleague from Roscommon does.

Personally don't understand this but it seems to be very prevalent. That along with the George Hook-eque "why did she go back to the house....go upstairs....take her top off..." etc is what bothers me.

[gallsman]

On the balance of things, I think we'd be a lot worse off as a society if people refrained from speaking their mind on things they clearly have an issue with. If it looks like a duck etc then just f**king call it a duck and don't be afraid to call out anyone protesting otherwise. In my case, I think the dry humping suggestion so laughably implausible that I'm not even going to consider it as a possibility. To my mind, it is a creation of someone who has already decided the lads aren't guilty, or that they don't want them to be guilty, and so has come up with an explanation, no matter how daft, to explain away (in their head) what Dara Florence saw.

That, of course, is not carte blanche to dismiss any and all opposing views as unworthy of consideration or discourse, the way our esteemed sheep shagging colleague from Roscommon does.

Personally don't understand this but it seems to be very prevalent. That along with the George Hook-eque "why did she go back to the house....go upstairs....take her top off..." etc is what bothers me.

Same - I'm waiting to hear from Asal Mor about why he's not impartial. Believing someone to be not guilty having listened to the evidence (which is possible, despite what Syferus claims) is not evidence of impartiality.

[Syferus]

The old approach of pretending the justice system, particularly for sexual assault and rape cases, is infallible and the arbiter of truth (it only serves that role in a legal sense, which some here would do well to remember is a very narrow description) is far worse than highlighting the inherent biases that female rape victims face.

Nobody, literally nobody, has suggested this is the case. You appear to believe you're some sort of bastion of truth and righteousness.

It was a valid rhetorical question in its context. It's strange you seem to think it's some brilliant gotcha to bring it up as a reply to what I just posted because it's a non-sequitur at best.

No, it wasn't. It was a laughably transparent attempt to put controversial words in someone else's mouth.

I'm not a juror on this trial so I can say whatever I damn well please and it doesn't prejudice anything. I'm not even a citizen of the country the trial is taking place in. Suggesting that me pointing out the pathetic apologist stances of some posters is causing justice to fail is probably a top tier nonsense line in a thread filled to the brim with them.

I see you've failed to understand my post and, in your rabid dog-like rush to respond, have shown once again that you've no interest in justice as a holistic concept, the rights of women or society holding people accountable for their actions - you simply want these lads, in this case done.

The most hilarious aspect of it all is that you appear to think that you, and only you, are capable of looking at this critically, or by applying some consideration and intellect. You're just a complete windbag.

Have you actually read anything Asal Mor has said? Frankly you're talking out of your hole on that one.

That you think I believe I am the only one capable of looking at this critically shows just how much of your argument is based on bad faith, unsupported by anything that has been said. Opinions are opinions. I have no interest in going around in circles on that one.

[Milltown Row2]

Its the only system they have, had they your system then there would be a lot of innocent people in jail

That's not good enough either. By that logic, an incapable number wrongful convictions and miscarriages of justice over the years could be written off by "it's the best system we have"

I'll put it another way, its the only system we have and that it is done by jury, basing it on the evidence thats been given and not the crap on here. Would you prefer the judge to pass judgement the? W've tried that here and it didnt work

So in your view the legal system is wrong and you have a better way of doing it?

Was it reported that she said she lost her friends in the club but CCTV shows her friend trying to get her to come with them at the end of the night?

[Taylor]

The old approach of pretending the justice system, particularly for sexual assault and rape cases, is infallible and the arbiter of truth (it only serves that role in a legal sense, which some here would do well to remember is a very narrow description) is far worse than highlighting the inherent biases that female rape victims face.

Nobody, literally nobody, has suggested this is the case. You appear to believe you're some sort of bastion of truth and righteousness.

It was a valid rhetorical question in its context. It's strange you seem to think it's some brilliant gotcha to bring it up as a reply to what I just posted because it's a non-sequitur at best.

No, it wasn't. It was a laughably transparent attempt to put controversial words in someone else's mouth.

I'm not a juror on this trial so I can say whatever I damn well please and it doesn't prejudice anything. I'm not even a citizen of the country the trial is taking place in. Suggesting that me pointing out the pathetic apologist stances of some posters is causing justice to fail is probably a top tier nonsense line in a thread filled to the brim with them.

I see you've failed to understand my post and, in your rabid dog-like rush to respond, have shown once again that you've no interest in justice as a holistic concept, the rights of women or society holding people accountable for their actions - you simply want these lads, in this case done.

The most hilarious aspect of it all is that you appear to think that you, and only you, are capable of looking at this critically, or by applying some consideration and intellect. You're just a complete windbag.

Have you actually read anything Asal Mor has said? Frankly you're talking out of your hole on that one.

That you think I believe I am the only one capable of looking at this critically shows just how much of your argument is based on bad faith, unsupported by anything that has been said. Opinions are opinions. I have no interest in going around in circles on that one.

With all due respect you have criticised people who have differing views than youself.

If a person has based their view on the evidence they have heard have they not the same right as yourself to voice their opinions?

[seafoid]

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/months-of-paddy-jacksons-life-have-been-blighted-by-rugby-rape-case-jury-hears-36711795.html

Rugby player Paddy Jackson's life has been "blighted" for almost two years by the rape allegations, his lawyer has said.

Brendan Kelly QC described the evidence against the sportsman as "untruthful and inconsistent".

Mr Kelly told the jury that Jackson had not been obliged to take the stand in his own defence but he chose to do so.

"A defendant need play no part in a criminal trial. Some defendants choose to give evidence.

"In this case Mr Jackson and his co-defendants have all given evidence. No one has hidden. No one has tried to conceal. Everyone has got up, with their good character, and given their account," he said

Referring to Ms Florence's evidence that Jackson asked her if she wanted to join in Mr Kelly said: "What did they do to conceal (the rape)?"

He added: "When people commit crime they tend to hide, they tend to conceal what they did because they don't want to get caught.

"What did these two violent rapists do when she walked in? They invited her to join in. Dara Florence is absolutely central to this case."

Mr Kelly told the jury that the woman had been "petrified" that her sexual activity with Jackson and Olding would end up on social media.

"It was her main concern the morning after and in the days that followed. If it is your main concern why not tell a single friend?" he said.

The lawyer said she told her friend she had been raped in case an "expose" made its way onto social media.

"If it did get out on social media, this expose with this well known rugby player, one of the first persons to find out would be (said friend).

"So what do you do if you are trying to derail those rumours? You get in first, as soon as you wake that morning and your first port of call is (your friend)," he said.

Mr Kelly told the jury that after the woman told her friends she had been raped "she was stuck".

[HiMucker]

Leaving opinions on the verdict aside, that reads like an awful defence statement.  Surely they could have have come up with a better statement than that?

[seafoid]

Leaving opinions on the verdict aside, that reads like an awful defence statement.  Surely they could have have come up with a better statement than that?

I was thinking the same thing.

[AZOffaly]

Leaving opinions on the verdict aside, that reads like an awful defence statement.  Surely they could have have come up with a better statement than that?

I was thinking the same thing.

The first ever "Accused impact statement".

[Asal Mor]

On the balance of things, I think we'd be a lot worse off as a society if people refrained from speaking their mind on things they clearly have an issue with. If it looks like a duck etc then just f**king call it a duck and don't be afraid to call out anyone protesting otherwise. In my case, I think the dry humping suggestion so laughably implausible that I'm not even going to consider it as a possibility. To my mind, it is a creation of someone who has already decided the lads aren't guilty, or that they don't want them to be guilty, and so has come up with an explanation, no matter how daft, to explain away (in their head) what Dara Florence saw.

That, of course, is not carte blanche to dismiss any and all opposing views as unworthy of consideration or discourse, the way our esteemed sheep shagging colleague from Roscommon does.

Personally don't understand this but it seems to be very prevalent. That along with the George Hook-eque "why did she go back to the house....go upstairs....take her top off..." etc is what bothers me.

Same - I'm waiting to hear from Asal Mor about why he's not impartial. Believing someone to be not guilty having listened to the evidence (which is possible, despite what Syferus claims) is not evidence of impartiality.

Like I said gallsman, I'd like to think I was impartial at the start. I tried to look at both sides of it, but having heard the evidence I believe they are not guilty and hope that is the verdict.

[Asal Mor]

Leaving opinions on the verdict aside, that reads like an awful defence statement.  Surely they could have have come up with a better statement than that?

I was thinking the same thing.

The first ever "Accused impact statement".

So it's fine for the girl to be traumatised by all this but not PJ. You're assuming guilt again. If he's innocent, he has every right to complain about his life being blighted.

[gallsman]

On the balance of things, I think we'd be a lot worse off as a society if people refrained from speaking their mind on things they clearly have an issue with. If it looks like a duck etc then just f**king call it a duck and don't be afraid to call out anyone protesting otherwise. In my case, I think the dry humping suggestion so laughably implausible that I'm not even going to consider it as a possibility. To my mind, it is a creation of someone who has already decided the lads aren't guilty, or that they don't want them to be guilty, and so has come up with an explanation, no matter how daft, to explain away (in their head) what Dara Florence saw.

That, of course, is not carte blanche to dismiss any and all opposing views as unworthy of consideration or discourse, the way our esteemed sheep shagging colleague from Roscommon does.

Personally don't understand this but it seems to be very prevalent. That along with the George Hook-eque "why did she go back to the house....go upstairs....take her top off..." etc is what bothers me.

Same - I'm waiting to hear from Asal Mor about why he's not impartial. Believing someone to be not guilty having listened to the evidence (which is possible, despite what Syferus claims) is not evidence of impartiality.

Like I said gallsman, I'd like to think I was impartial at the start. I tried to look at both sides of it, but having heard the evidence I believe they are not guilty and hope that is the verdict.

What evidence have you heard? You've seen a few tweets and daily summaries like the rest of us. "Hoping" they're found not guilty is strange to me.

What I hope for is justice to be served. Nothing more or less.

[sid waddell]

Kelly's closing statement was some pile of rot.

The type of stuff you expect from a fat, pissed as a fart, divorced middle aged accountant at closing time in the Berkeley Court on the night of a Six Nations match, before he drives home.