Paddy Jackson apology

[STREET FIGHTER]

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.

Lol you really have no shame.....😂😂

Called out a few times by the legally minded guys on this thread and you ran a mile......😂😂

Couldnt find the answers online.....

[Lar Naparka]

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.

Another excellent post David but I'm afraid you are wasting your time preaching to those for whom prejudice is far more important than reason.
If I were on the jury, I'd like to think that I would start off with an entirely open mind but I am also certain that I would have agreed with the verdict that was returned. There is no logical alternative. Once I realised that the complainant was not telling the truth I would have problems accepting anything else she had to say at face value.
After all, she had ample opportunity to consider what happened in Jackson's bedroom from the time she complained to the PSNI that she had been raped in June 2016. From the time, two days later, until the not guilty verdict was announced, the defendants had to live with the possibility of facing long custodial sentences and all the shame and opprobrium that goes with a rape conviction. Given the high stakes involved, I would have expected the complainant to be truthful at all times.
That alone might not have been enough to convince me that her entire account was fabricated but the evidence of Dara Florence would have been the deciding factor. Apart from all that, I would infer from the ribald banter between the defendants and their associates the following morning that they believed they had done nothing wrong or they would not have been so boastful about their alleged sexual prowess. Again, if I had been a juror, I would have inferred that the complainant had a change of heart when she realised that Ms. Florence saw what had been really going on and decided on a damage limitation exercise.

[Tony Baloney]

Syferus embarrassed again. Watching him get crushed is my

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.

Lol you really have no shame.....😂😂

Called out a few times by the legally minded guys on this thread and you ran a mile......😂😂

Couldnt find the answers online.....

I'm not a fan of blood sports or bullying, but watching this pathetic little creature get routinely crushed is fast becoming a favourite pastime.

[bamboo]

Think that last post from Syferus proves beyond doubt that's he's a pure troll account. Absolutely no way that he could type that out with a straight face.

The contributions of David and BC1 in this thread have been a breath of fresh air when it was getting a bit OTT at times.

[brokencrossbar1]

Think that last post from Syferus proves beyond doubt that's he's a pure troll account. Absolutely no way that he could type that out with a straight face.

The contributions of David and BC1 in this thread have been a breath of fresh air when it was getting a bit OTT at times.

He's not even a good troll account. He is a parody of a troll account and a bad one at that.

[Milltown Row2]

Think that last post from Syferus proves beyond doubt that's he's a pure troll account. Absolutely no way that he could type that out with a straight face.

The contributions of David and BC1 in this thread have been a breath of fresh air when it was getting a bit OTT at times.

He's not even a good troll account. He is a parody of a troll acunt and a bad one at that.

Fixed that

[trueblue1234]

Syferus embarrassed again. Watching him get crushed is my

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.

Lol you really have no shame.....😂😂

Called out a few times by the legally minded guys on this thread and you ran a mile......😂😂

Couldnt find the answers online.....

I'm not a fan of blood sports or bullying, but watching this pathetic little creature get routinely crushed is fast becoming a favourite pastime.

You'd love to know whether he's oblivious to when he gets his ass handed to him or just doesn't care. Either way, t'is enjoyable.

[David McKeown]

I meant to say the other thing that always surprised me about this trial was the suggestion that in this particular instance the discrepancy of the account given by the complainant to the doctor and that given to police was because of the trauma of what had happened. If that was the case the Prosecution were advancing I would have expected expert evidence on that from both sides but unless I missed it there didn't seem to be any. I'm not suggesting for a second that wasn't the explanation just surprised about the lack of evidence. When that's combined with the fact that Olding was returned for trial on a charge of vaginal rape it gets even more surprising. I presume the PPS thought at least until arraignment the account to the doctor was the correct one so I'm very curious about the lack of discussion by both sides.

[brokencrossbar1]

I meant to say the other thing that always surprised me about this trial was the suggestion that in this particular instance the discrepancy of the account given by the complainant to the doctor and that given to police was because of the trauma of what had happened. If that was the case the Prosecution were advancing I would have expected expert evidence on that from both sides but unless I missed it there didn't seem to be any. I'm not suggesting for a second that wasn't the explanation just surprised about the lack of evidence. When that's combined with the fact that Olding was returned for trial on a charge of vaginal rape it gets even more surprising. I presume the PPS thought at least until arraignment the account to the doctor was the correct one so I'm very curious about the lack of discussion by both sides.

The whole general lack of expert evidence surprised me David, particularly given the two Defence teams. Perhaps there was a feeling that an 'expert' could perhaps cause too much confusion for the jury and that the probitive value would not be that high. Also the lads were self payers so there may not have been the money in the pot and judgement calls were made? 

[Hound]

The judge certainly thought the lie (that Olding had vaginal sex with her) was important! And the jury seemed to follow the direction to acquit (if no other evidence and don't believe trauma caused the lie) given how quickly they decided the verdict.

"If you believe she lied or made false allegations, then you need to exercise extreme caution in your approach to her evidence, in particular whether you feel you can safely rely on the account she later gave to police.

"If you feel she has actually lied to Dr Lavery about the accused, then I am directing you not to rely on her complaints in relation to the first three defendants [Jackson, Olding and McIlroy] unless you find there is other independent evidence to support what she says.

"Whether or not there are inconsistencies in the account the woman gave to Dr Lavery at the Rowan clinic and the account she gave to the police is a matter for you. If you decide there are inconsistencies you must decide why that must be so."

Judge Smyth also reminded the court that experts had agreed trauma can be a reason to explain inconsistencies and said: "If you are satisfied that trauma is the reason then the inconsistencies might not be that important to you."

[David McKeown]

I meant to say the other thing that always surprised me about this trial was the suggestion that in this particular instance the discrepancy of the account given by the complainant to the doctor and that given to police was because of the trauma of what had happened. If that was the case the Prosecution were advancing I would have expected expert evidence on that from both sides but unless I missed it there didn't seem to be any. I'm not suggesting for a second that wasn't the explanation just surprised about the lack of evidence. When that's combined with the fact that Olding was returned for trial on a charge of vaginal rape it gets even more surprising. I presume the PPS thought at least until arraignment the account to the doctor was the correct one so I'm very curious about the lack of discussion by both sides.

The whole general lack of expert evidence surprised me David, particularly given the two Defence teams. Perhaps there was a feeling that an 'expert' could perhaps cause too much confusion for the jury and that the probitive value would not be that high. Also the lads were self payers so there may not have been the money in the pot and judgement calls were made?

Forgot about the lack of legal aid. That may well explain it

[take_yer_points]

Former Ulster and Ireland fly-half Paddy Jackson has signed a two-year deal with French top 14 club Perpignan.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/44411185

[quit yo jibbajabba]

scenes outside ravenhill as a pile o biddies in pink hair burn their Perpignan tops.....

[Milltown Row2]

scenes outside ravenhill as a pile o biddies in pink hair burn their Perpignan tops.....

Syferus last seen getting on a plane to Perpignan with all his posters.. and his Yes campaign, equal rights, same sex marriage, British judicial system sucks Tshirts!!

[spuds]

Happy for Paddy he can go on and rebuild his rugby career same as Stuart Olding. They have been through the courts and walk away the worse for the entire public process, good for them that they are that bit removed from the Irish, English game.