The IRISH RUGBY thread

[magpie seanie]

"She was bladdered"......"did she go to the police the next day".....

Some of ye really need to take a look at yourselves.

I put a question mark at the end of that, I was asking the questions

some people only see and quote what they want

You probably should have read the article before commenting.

I'd already posted before that link became available... you shoulda checked the time of post

Go check the bottom of page 412, good lad.

[magpie seanie]

It's a good job none of you clowns are on a jury as you have already decided to convict having heard a second hand report of the first day's evidence from the prosecution, coupled with some snippets of gossip around the town and on the internet.

Why bother with a trial or having a defence. Some of the comments on here beggar belief.

Which ones, exactly?

[Syferus]

Thanks Syf for agreeing that you are relying on second hand news.

Moreover it is second hand news reporting of the outline of the prosecution's case, as far as I can see they have not yet produced a scintilla of evidence in this case. Though since it is scheduled to last 5 weeks it is unlikely there would be any evidence produced on day 1.

But sure you go ahead and fill your boots spoofing nonsense like you do ad nauseum on here.

The only ones spoofing here are those who try to hide their sexist, victim-blaming caveman attitudes behind cliches like "innocent until proven guilty" or "she was probably bladdered".

Anyone who read the reports can tell something very wrong happened. Someone who can't admit that much immediately throw up massive red flags as regards where their heads are at or what their motivation in trying to mitigate such abhorant behaviour.

[AZOffaly]

Thanks Syf for agreeing that you are relying on second hand news.

Moreover it is second hand news reporting of the outline of the prosecution's case, as far as I can see they have not yet produced a scintilla of evidence in this case. Though since it is scheduled to last 5 weeks it is unlikely there would be any evidence produced on day 1.

But sure you go ahead and fill your boots spoofing nonsense like you do ad nauseum on here.

The only ones spoofing here are those who try to hide their sexist, victim-blaming caveman attitudes behind cliches like "innocent until proven guilty" or "she was probably bladdered".

Anyone who read the reports can tell something very wrong happened. Anyone who can't admit that much immediately throw up massive red flags as regards where their heads are at or what their motivation in trying to mitigate such abhorant behaviour.

Syferus, you can't say that. You don't know. You're reading a newspaper report and assuming that everything in it is true, and proven guilty.

I think they are guilty of being idiots, philistines and absolute prototypical jock dicks. Just like Murray and Zebo were back in the day. However whether they are guilty of rape, or sexual assault is not proven either way. We just have to trust that the evidence will come out in the trial and if they are guilty, then I hope they get the book thrown at them. If it was consensual, then they've committed no crime, but I wouldn't be shaking their hands for it, put it like that.

[Frank_The_Tank]

Thanks Syf for agreeing that you are relying on second hand news.

Moreover it is second hand news reporting of the outline of the prosecution's case, as far as I can see they have not yet produced a scintilla of evidence in this case. Though since it is scheduled to last 5 weeks it is unlikely there would be any evidence produced on day 1.

But sure you go ahead and fill your boots spoofing nonsense like you do ad nauseum on here.

The only ones spoofing here are those who try to hide their sexist, victim-blaming caveman attitudes behind cliches like "innocent until proven guilty" or "she was probably bladdered".

Anyone who read the reports can tell something very wrong happened. Anyone who can't admit that much immediately throw up massive red flags as regards where their heads are at or what their motivation in trying to mitigate such abhorant behaviour.

cliches like innocent until proven guilty.....thanks for that - that's probably the stupidest thing I'll read on the Internet today.

[Frank_The_Tank]

Thanks Syf for agreeing that you are relying on second hand news.

Moreover it is second hand news reporting of the outline of the prosecution's case, as far as I can see they have not yet produced a scintilla of evidence in this case. Though since it is scheduled to last 5 weeks it is unlikely there would be any evidence produced on day 1.

But sure you go ahead and fill your boots spoofing nonsense like you do ad nauseum on here.

The only ones spoofing here are those who try to hide their sexist, victim-blaming caveman attitudes behind cliches like "innocent until proven guilty" or "she was probably bladdered".

Anyone who read the reports can tell something very wrong happened. Anyone who can't admit that much immediately throw up massive red flags as regards where their heads are at or what their motivation in trying to mitigate such abhorant behaviour.

Syferus, you can't say that. You don't know. You're reading a newspaper report and assuming that everything in it is true, and proven guilty.

I think they are guilty of being idiots, philistines and absolute prototypical jock dicks. Just like Murray and Zebo were back in the day. However whether they are guilty of rape, or sexual assault is not proven either way. We just have to trust that the evidence will come out in the trial and if they are guilty, then I hope they get the book thrown at them. If it was consensual, then they've committed no crime, but I wouldn't be shaking their hands for it, put it like that.

+1

[Syferus]

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal precedent, not something anyone outside of the judicial system adheres to.

It's a total cop out to try to use it and if you didn't realise that then you're even farther behind than I thought.

[AZOffaly]

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal precedent, not something anyone outside of the judicial system adheres to.

It's a total cop out to try to use it and if you didn't realise that then you're even farther behind than I thought.

Can you explain that? Do you believe that everyone arrested for everything is guilty?

[Frank_The_Tank]

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal precedent, not something anyone outside of the judicial system adheres to.

It's a total cop out to try to use it and if you didn't realise that then you're even farther behind than I thought.

Guilford 4 should never have been let out.  Dam that judicial system.  Everyone arrested should be just sent straight to jail - or better still let Syferus make up his mind on their guilt and hand down the punishment

[Syferus]

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal precedent, not something anyone outside of the judicial system adheres to.

It's a total cop out to try to use it and if you didn't realise that then you're even farther behind than I thought.

Can you explain that? Do you believe that everyone arrested for everything is guilty?

I can explain it very easily. If the evidence tells me someone is guilty I'll say they're guilty. I have no responsibility to give someone the benefit of the doubt because a court's legal precedent for a guilty verdict has not yet been reached.

It's a logical fallacy to use it in a discussion and the caveman types always hide behind it in rape cases or the sexual assault allegations of recent years. It does not work.

[Boycey]

Crock of shite, unsurprisingly...

[Avondhu star]

It's a good job none of you clowns are on a jury as you have already decided to convict having heard a second hand report of the first day's evidence from the prosecution, coupled with some snippets of gossip around the town and on the internet.

Why bother with a trial or having a defence. Some of the comments on here beggar belief.

"Second hand report" aka a blow-by-blow description from the court room by every major outlet.

Guess what bucko, you can't invent vaginal wall bleeding..

"blow by blow"  ooooh Vicar

[Keyser soze]

I take it Syf that you don't have many actual personal interactions with real people.

[Frank_The_Tank]

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal precedent, not something anyone outside of the judicial system adheres to.

It's a total cop out to try to use it and if you didn't realise that then you're even farther behind than I thought.

Can you explain that? Do you believe that everyone arrested for everything is guilty?

I can explain it very easily. If the evidence tells me someone is guilty I'll say they're guilty. I have no responsibility to give someone the benefit of the doubt because a court's legal precedent for a guilty verdict has not yet been reached.

It's a logical fallacy to use it in a discussion and the caveman types always hide behind it in rape cases or the sexual assault allegations of recent years. It does not work.

and what evidence have you heard so far?  Anything from the defence or just the opening prosecution details as reported by the media.  This is what the judge said to the jury pre-trial

"You are the only people who will see all the witnesses and hear all the evidence. Keep your minds open until the very end. Your views may well change as evidence unfolds."

Im not trying to hide behind anything - if the jury decides to convict them of guilty then I hope they get just sentences - but I dont pretend I know for 100% they are guilty 2 days into a trial. 

[AZOffaly]

Innocent until proven guilty is a legal precedent, not something anyone outside of the judicial system adheres to.

It's a total cop out to try to use it and if you didn't realise that then you're even farther behind than I thought.

Can you explain that? Do you believe that everyone arrested for everything is guilty?

I can explain it very easily. If the evidence tells me someone is guilty I'll say they're guilty. I have no responsibility to give someone the benefit of the doubt because a court's legal precedent for a guilty verdict has not yet been reached.

It's a logical fallacy to use it in a discussion and the caveman types always hide behind it in rape cases or the sexual assault allegations of recent years. It does not work.

What 'evidence' have you seen? I'm sure the defence will give counter evidence based on consensual relations, etc etc. I think you're jumping to conclusions here.

As I said, they may well be guilty, but coming to that conclusion on the basis of newspaper reports is presumptuous to say the least. 

And before you say anything, I am absolutely not 'victim blaming' or trying to minimise it. I'm just saying that I have no idea whether they are guilty or not, and I don't understand how you have made up your mind that they are?