The ulster rugby trial

[Milltown Row2]

Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

[Syferus]

Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

You have absolutely no conception of what the verdict means if you actually think this.

[Milltown Row2]

Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

You have absolutely no conception of what the verdict means if you actually think this.

Well I've as much knowledge of the law as you, which is nothing! Law degree? At the court each day? If not then exactly the same

[Syferus]

Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

You have absolutely no conception of what the verdict means if you actually think this.

Well I've as much knowledge of the law as you, which is nothing! Law degree? At the court each day? If not then exactly the same

Best quit now.

[Milltown Row2]

Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

You have absolutely no conception of what the verdict means if you actually think this.

Well I've as much knowledge of the law as you, which is nothing! Law degree? At the court each day? If not then exactly the same

Best quit now.

Why? Have you produced anything even remotely close to having some insight into how courts work?

[OgraAnDun]

Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

I have f/all knowledge of the law either, but surely there was simply insufficient evidence to convict them (or any defendant), rather than the complainant is a liar. Otherwise the courts would find people 'innocent' rather than simply 'not guilty'?

[Asal Mor]

Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.

Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say. 

Using the term "social justice warrior" is very Twitter alright. It's a tool to try and delegitimise debate. All alt-right terminology is.

By far the most venomous reaction I've seen has been from those who are seeking to vilify the complainant, by the way.

Then I suggest you take another look at some of the stuff on the #suemepaddy trend. Its character assassination stuff at this stage. Gary Walsh was turfed off the laois panel for what he said about the complainant (rightly so imo). By comparison, look at what the likes of what @flyingteacosy have said about PJ and it goes completely unchecked.

You'd wonder why some women have an "attitude". And then you wouldn't.

Why one side of this 'debate' (there shouldn't a debate that there is a serious problem in the first place) seem to refuse to acknowledge is that one side is completely a reaction to the behaviour of the other. It's not an invented issue. Women didn't suddenly decide rape was a problem with the advent of the internet and social media. They just didn't have much of a voice on anything until the last half century or less, even in this country. There's a hell of a lot of catching up to do.

The same platforms that let hysteria flourish in some quarters have also allowed many positive grassroots movements to form and grab society's attention. One side just wants people to shut up and stop spoiling their simple worldview with contrary information. That's sad.

This is your most hilarious bit yet. These hashtag movements have been vicious in seeking to destroy anyone who's voiced a differing opinion. Rory Best almost had to quit as Irish captain for attending a day of the trial of his close friend who was and still is an innocent man in the eyes of the law, such was the online backlash he faced.

It's the vindictiveness, constant personalising of the debate ("victim blamer/mysogonist" etc), pontificating about the legal system despite knowing little about it and flat-out illegal defamation of men who were innocent until proven guilty and who've now been acquitted, that angers people . Thank God we don't have any of that around here.

[Syferus]

Truly baffling but all too common now in this internet age. Social justice warriors have zero interest in nuance. They form an opinion that fits their ideology and then they saturate the airwaves with their hard edged version of the truth. How can anyone of good conscience say what they are saying with such certainty and with such venom? These people don't give a fook about the truth or the impact on the lives of those who they disagree with.

Anybody who uses the words "social justice warriors" sort of destroys their own argument.

And why would that be sid? Typical of the style you see on twitter I have to say. 

Using the term "social justice warrior" is very Twitter alright. It's a tool to try and delegitimise debate. All alt-right terminology is.

By far the most venomous reaction I've seen has been from those who are seeking to vilify the complainant, by the way.

Then I suggest you take another look at some of the stuff on the #suemepaddy trend. Its character assassination stuff at this stage. Gary Walsh was turfed off the laois panel for what he said about the complainant (rightly so imo). By comparison, look at what the likes of what @flyingteacosy have said about PJ and it goes completely unchecked.

You'd wonder why some women have an "attitude". And then you wouldn't.

Why one side of this 'debate' (there shouldn't a debate that there is a serious problem in the first place) seem to refuse to acknowledge is that one side is completely a reaction to the behaviour of the other. It's not an invented issue. Women didn't suddenly decide rape was a problem with the advent of the internet and social media. They just didn't have much of a voice on anything until the last half century or less, even in this country. There's a hell of a lot of catching up to do.

The same platforms that let hysteria flourish in some quarters have also allowed many positive grassroots movements to form and grab society's attention. One side just wants people to shut up and stop spoiling their simple worldview with contrary information. That's sad.

This is your most hilarious bit yet. These hashtag movements have been vicious in seeking to destroy anyone who's voiced a differing opinion. Rory Best almost had to quit as Irish captain for attending a day of the trial of his close friend who was and still is an innocent man in the eyes of the law, such was the online backlash he faced.

It's the vindictiveness, constant personalising of the debate ("victim blamer/mysogonist" etc), pontificating about the legal system despite knowing little about it and flat-out illegal defamation of men who were innocent until proven guilty and who've now been acquitted, that angers people . Thank God we don't have any of that around here.

I have no interest in the views of someone who consistently and in bad faith tried to paint the complainant as a promiscuous liar, entirely ignored evidence of systematic biases preventing rap convictions and demonised anti-sexual assault movements to boot.

You've been outed - you don't get to play the role of a respectable commenter on this topic.

[Milltown Row2]

Still not guilty... for all the crap in the eyes of the law she lied and believer crowd are still giving it large!

I have f/all knowledge of the law either, but surely there was simply insufficient evidence to convict them (or any defendant), rather than the complainant is a liar. Otherwise the courts would find people 'innocent' rather than simply 'not guilty'?

Well if the jury thought she was telling the truth would Jackson an co be in jail?

[imtommygunn]

so if you have one perception of an event and I have another who is the liar mr?

[Syferus]

so if you have one perception of an event and I have another who is the liar mr?

The one with the vagina.

[nrico2006]

Will Jackson get a big pay off from Ulster to cancel his contract? Surely they cant simply sack him or they would have to pay him even more?

[Syferus]

Will Jackson get a big pay off from Ulster to cancel his contract? Surely they cant simply sack him or they would have to pay him even more?

If the IRFU don't have a morals clause in it I would be absolutely amazed.

[Milltown Row2]

so if you have one perception of an event and I have another who is the liar mr?

Well if 11 people hear the same event and all of them come to the same conclusion Who would you go with?

If you set aside your gut feeling and go with what's been heard by the jury you have to accept that they got it right, no?

[imtommygunn]

I never thought they would be found guilty. There was too much "reasonable doubt". That is very different from saying the girl is a liar. If she was found out to be telling lies - which she wasn't - she would be in trouble with the law.