Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Link

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22
General discussion / Re: The ulster rugby trial
« on: February 20, 2018, 04:05:02 PM »
You brought it up (this clip) are the prosecution going to use it?

So if you were on the jury it would help form an opinion on Jackson, for what?

Orior brought it up.

Not that clip, think his clip chat was about a possible video of the session in the bedroom

Nope. Orior's clip comment was about Bowe and some other lad which is the same video as the youtube link above.

General discussion / Re: The ulster rugby trial
« on: February 20, 2018, 09:28:36 AM »
There is a video circulating of 3 ulster players - Paddy, Tommy and another.

Could influence the jury :-/

is this the "dark things" line when they're dressed in ulster gear?

General discussion / Re: The ulster rugby trial
« on: February 14, 2018, 05:06:00 PM »

Did the witness testimony not describe Olding having his hands on his thighs opposed to the back of the accusers head therefore not matching up?
Did McIlroy not claim it was him received the BJ in Jacksons bedroom? (Toby Hedworth QC yesterday)

No. McIlroy claimed a handjob.

I can't find the article which mentioned hands by his sides but Hound claimed that on her in the last few days.

General discussion / Re: The ulster rugby trial
« on: February 14, 2018, 04:12:37 PM »
Personally I think it has been a pretty disastrous day for the defence.

The witness who entered the room said she “100% saw sex” between Jackson and the complainant and the description of the position of the three people on the bed tallies perfectly with the complainant's. When people refer to “sex” they are not referring to dry humping, digital penetration or anything else except vaginal sex - that contradicts Jackson's story.

Witness testimony has backed up the complainant about her state of drunkenness or otherwise. That the complainant was "intoxicated" was a central narrative of defence cross examination.

The witness who entered the room has stated that there were no signs of the complainant positively consenting.

A few seconds is more than enough to establish whether sex is going on. It's a lot harder to establish whether a rape is occurring, and anybody who walked in is not going to automatically think of rape - it's highly unlikely they would - so the witness not suspecting a rape was going on is quite consistent with the complainant's story too.

I think the bit about Olding ending up lying on the sofa beside one of the witnesses is also very interesting. Apart from the obvious creepy aspect of him deciding to sleep on a sofa beside a young woman who had vomited at the party and was asleep by the time he'd decided to plonk himself down there (did he try anything on with a woman who was asleep, one wonders?), it undermines the defence story that Olding had previously gone upstairs - and to Jackson’s bedroom no less - to crash out. That was a narrative which already looked very shaky but looks even more so after today.

Why would you just cherry pick all the points that were helpful to the prosecution and completely ignore all the points that were helpful to the defence?

I think your Olding paragraph is absolute nonsense, but the rest is spot on and is indeed good for the prosecution. But you left out the other side, that while the witness did not see consent actively given, what she witnessed seemed consensual. And in now way was the girl frozen. She was actively given Olding oral, while his hands were by his side, so no physical force being used. And when the IP saw the witness, she did not yell for help that these two lads were raping here, instead she turned her head away to hide her face.

That's all very unhelpful for the prosecution, but as you said, if it really is PJ's story that he didn't penetrate, then that would seem to have been caught out as a lie. Doesn't make him guilty but severely questions his credibility. Goes to the earlier comments that saying nothing to the police would have been wiser, as the temptation to exaggerate or lie when being accused of something, if you thought it would help you (regardless of whether you are actually guilty or not), must be great.

It turns out the couch where Olding crashed out was upstairs, so I'll give him that one. Still think it's weird that he would decide to lie down beside a woman who was asleep and had vomited earlier. But anyway.

You assert that "in no way was the girl frozen. She was actively giving Olding oral".

Going by the testimony as reported, you're in no position to be able to make that assertion. The witness who walked in said there were "no signs" of the complainant positively consenting.

"Actively giving oral", as you put it, would be classified as a sign of positive consent.

The witness who walked in testified that in her opinion the complainant did not look distressed. That was only her assumption - she was not in a position to know whether the complainant was distressed or not, because she is not the complainant.

Given that the witness stated that there were no signs of positive consent, the witness is thus in no position to be able to assert that what went on was consensual.

The default position of any normal person who walks in on a sexual encounter is to assume that it is consensual, given that the overwhelming majority of sexual encounters are consensual. People don't walk in on a sexual encounter and think to themselves, David Brent like, "I think that looks like a rape", unless it is absolutely obvious.

What is clear from the witness’s testimony is that her belief that the encounter she walked in on was consensual was based on that very default assumption that sex is consensual. It was not based on any “signs” or appearance - because she has stated "there were no signs of positive consent".

The witness's testimony is consistent with the complainant's story.

Did the witness testimony not describe Olding having his hands on his thighs opposed to the back of the accusers head therefore not matching up?

General discussion / Re: The ulster rugby trial
« on: February 13, 2018, 02:25:55 PM »
I see Jackson story is he didn't have penetrative sex with the girl and just used his hand - surely this would be easy to prove if the normal procedures where followed when she reported rape in the next few days?

Did i miss something?

I thought the report today was that he denied that anything happened when speaking to a 3rd girl who was interviewed today. i.e. not the accuser or the woman who opened the door to the room.

General discussion / Re: The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread
« on: January 09, 2018, 11:24:27 AM »
Lads - are we sure Firmino wasn't trying to say something that's actually a compliment in Brazil? I'm sure the t-shirts are being printed as I type.  ;D

good to see you have wakened. it's already been confirmed what firmino has said in Brazilian.

most leading sports physios and Pat Carton differ greatly about the need for hip surgery.

Of course they do.

Constant physiotherapy to counteract FAI/labral tear problems pays physios a lot of money.
Surgery to potentially fix FAI/labral tear pays surgeons lots of money.

Successful surgery will lead to less trips to the physio. I'm sure Lee and the mayo physio team had a long time to think about getting both hips done. I would guess it is due to the conservative approach with physiotherapy failing over the few seasons.

First off the rumours that was spread about Lee Keegan was disgusting. 

Surgery if all possible is avoided, He has said its because of wear and tear and Keegan is player that only had his first full season in the Mayo senior jersey in 2011 and unlike some players he played little underage football for his county matter of fact i don't think he ever played county minor so without looking to play the blame game its more than likely the over the top training that Keegan has been doing in the last 6 years that has resulted in both of his hips requiring surgery.
On the surface you make a strong case. What you neglect to say is that Keegan played rugby extensively at underage level and it was touch and go as to whether he would take up the pro-rugby route or commit to GAA. His long term injuries could be traced to rugby as easily as "over the top training". The extended season he had last year with Westport didn't help but that's par for the course for players who commit to both club and county.

By all accounts Lee has been a glutton for training and as he ages he may learn like many others before him to train smartly. in this regard there's a good article on Kieran Fitz of Corofin in today's Indo who continues to play well at 37yrs of age. Liked how he described himself as the No 2 full-back in the household as his wife has two All Irelands with Galway Ladies in that position.

Who also has had groin, ankle and hip operations. Possibly only has began to train smartly since these.

Personally having went through a similar surgery with another orthopedic consultant, I was never promised 100%. I was given a detailed consultation, detailed report of MRI with the pros/cons of surgery and the choice was mine. I think the number was 60% chance of improvement, 15% of making it worse and 25% of the condition staying the same.

It took about 5/6 months for recovery. The result is an improvement but not back to 100%.

I would be surprised if any surgeon promised 100% each and every time. Some guys hips are that bad by the time the consultant gets near them that nothing can be done.

General discussion / Re: The IRISH RUGBY thread
« on: November 15, 2017, 02:09:43 PM »

« on: November 13, 2017, 09:49:48 AM »
exactly why IMHO its a stupid thing to say.

The same thing could be said in a lot of different county's

just looking at the minor league and Kevin Lynches where getting absolutely hammered by nearly everyone, how come the turnaround.

McHugh and Mullan would have been with Derry minor footballers all year and would have missed a lot of games due to that.
Maybe a few talented u16s didn't play in antrim league but came in for derry championship.

General discussion / Re: Mortgages - Help!
« on: November 10, 2017, 09:15:12 AM »
Changed to Santander recently, we use a guy who looks after all that stuff, so never really take any notice of best deals but they must have had an change over offer as we got £3000 cheque from changing it, I thought we'd have to put it into the mortgage but the broker guy said nope thats yours!!

£150 quid well spent using someone who knows what they are doing, as they can save you money and let you know of the pitfalls and hidden costs

Was this a cashback offer MR?

Danske Bank had a similiar offer of £1200/£1500 cashback for first time buyers. They didn't offer the best rate but the cashback made it the best deal. I will probably change provider next renewal and first direct looks the best to me at the moment.

Derry / Re: Derry Club Football & Hurling
« on: October 24, 2017, 09:23:57 AM »
I see the facebook live stream of the ulster camogie final was a big success but for some reason the hurling wasn't allowed to be shown. Was there an alternative live stream?

I recorded TG4's highlights show last night but it didn't show the ulster hurling final. Is it available anywhere else?

Derry / Re: Derry Club Football & Hurling
« on: October 17, 2017, 09:18:39 PM »
I'm no expert but I know we used at least 15 u21s not including minors.

Derry / Re: Derry Club Football & Hurling
« on: October 17, 2017, 04:31:02 PM »
I doubt there would be any but I would guarantee you that Lavey, Faughanvale, Dungiven and more would still have fielded this year if they were told minors couldn't play.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 22