Paddy Jackson apology

[nrico2006]

They cant be sacked for taking part in a threesome, therefore their private messages got them sacked. Surprised Gilroy was treated differently. Should every employee now be cautious over what they text or whatsapp as it could get you in bother with your employers?

[Milltown Row2]

They cant be sacked for taking part in a threesome, therefore their private messages got them sacked. Surprised Gilroy was treated differently. Should every employee now be cautious over what they text or whatsapp as it could get you in bother with your employers?

Well yes, if you've a professional job like health service (doctor, nurse) or teaching or something along those lines you may find that you could be in murky waters

[sid waddell]

Syf/sid losing the plot again

To be fair, that's one of your better, more articulate comebacks, mate 

[Milltown Row2]

Syf/sid losing the plot again

To be fair, that's one of your better, more articulate comebacks, mate 

Keep flogging that dead horse Syf

[moysider]

They cant be sacked for taking part in a threesome, therefore their private messages got them sacked. Surprised Gilroy was treated differently. Should every employee now be cautious over what they text or whatsapp as it could get you in bother with your employers?

Well yes, if you've a professional job like health service (doctor, nurse) or teaching or something along those lines you may find that you could be in murky waters

I doubt it. The messages only came into play when they were accused of rape.

As regards teaching. Arrested for a row in a chipper could be enough for a dismissal. Even if there was no conviction. A rape accusation -forget about. Even if you were aquitted.

These are the broad guidelines for dismissal for 'social' behaviour.

Complaints about certain matters that relate to conduct outside the course of a registered teacher's profession on grounds such as convictions for certain offences, and where the conduct is of such a serious nature as would bring the profession into disrepute.


Complaint against a registered teacher can relate to any school-related professional activity, or any activity or role undertaken in their capacity as a registered teacher.

[sid waddell]

Not quite as articulate that time, mate. Maintaining such a relatively high standard of articulacy as you had in your previous post must be tough for you, but sure we all love a trier, eh.

[Milltown Row2]

Not quite as articulate that time, mate. Maintaining such a relatively high standard of articulacy as you had in your previous post must be tough for you, but sure we all love a trier, eh.

Aye, it's tough! Keeping up with your bullshit and how you manage multiple accounts is a credit to you. I suppose having no friends makes it difficult, so by making other accounts you can at least have a friend. Don't argue with yourself though

[sid waddell]

Not quite as articulate that time, mate. Maintaining such a relatively high standard of articulacy as you had in your previous post must be tough for you, but sure we all love a trier, eh.

Aye, it's tough! Keeping up with your bullshit and how you manage multiple accounts is a credit to you. I suppose having no friends makes it difficult, so by making other accounts you can at least have a friend. Don't argue with yourself though

Ooh temper, temper.

Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and get onto the mods if you're worried about multiple accounts?

Maybe you're worried you'll expose yourself for such?

Eh?

[David McKeown]

The trial was always going to run its whole course. The Prosecution has reserves aboutnit and that came directly to me from the mouth of a member of the PPS. They had serious concerns over the conduct of the investigation by the police and that was clear due to how some of the evidence was accumulated. It was a poor trial and maybe it may have been different if the police had carried out their job correctly but it is what it is and that will never change. They were found not guilty and the door has now closed on their case and the next stage of their lives and the complainants will now begin. This has been talked to death and I've nothing left to say.

But a judge can direct a jury to acquit and the defence can apply for a Galbraith ruling to have the charges dismissed.

I'm not sure about the latter, but the former is a not uncommon occurrence.

In your post, you state that "it may have been different had the police carried out their job correctly".

Well, there we go. And some folks wonder why there were protests, eh.

Both are becoming more and more uncommon in recent years. There's a judgement from last year about how if there's any chance a jury can convict (as opposed to will or should convict) then the matter should be left to the jury. The judgement was to do with the murder of Robert Hamil.

[Milltown Row2]

Tommy Tiernan giving it large during his stand up... I wonder making jokes about a rape case will get the feminists out

[nrico2006]

The trial was always going to run its whole course. The Prosecution has reserves aboutnit and that came directly to me from the mouth of a member of the PPS. They had serious concerns over the conduct of the investigation by the police and that was clear due to how some of the evidence was accumulated. It was a poor trial and maybe it may have been different if the police had carried out their job correctly but it is what it is and that will never change. They were found not guilty and the door has now closed on their case and the next stage of their lives and the complainants will now begin. This has been talked to death and I've nothing left to say.

But a judge can direct a jury to acquit and the defence can apply for a Galbraith ruling to have the charges dismissed.

I'm not sure about the latter, but the former is a not uncommon occurrence.

In your post, you state that "it may have been different had the police carried out their job correctly".

Well, there we go. And some folks wonder why there were protests, eh.

Both are becoming more and more uncommon in recent years. There's a judgement from last year about how if there's any chance a jury can convict (as opposed to will or should convict) then the matter should be left to the jury. The judgement was to do with the murder of Robert Hamil.

Genuine question - why in some trials can previous convictions be revealed and used and in others they cant?

[brokencrossbar1]

The trial was always going to run its whole course. The Prosecution has reserves aboutnit and that came directly to me from the mouth of a member of the PPS. They had serious concerns over the conduct of the investigation by the police and that was clear due to how some of the evidence was accumulated. It was a poor trial and maybe it may have been different if the police had carried out their job correctly but it is what it is and that will never change. They were found not guilty and the door has now closed on their case and the next stage of their lives and the complainants will now begin. This has been talked to death and I've nothing left to say.

But a judge can direct a jury to acquit and the defence can apply for a Galbraith ruling to have the charges dismissed.

I'm not sure about the latter, but the former is a not uncommon occurrence.

In your post, you state that "it may have been different had the police carried out their job correctly".

Well, there we go. And some folks wonder why there were protests, eh.

Both are becoming more and more uncommon in recent years. There's a judgement from last year about how if there's any chance a jury can convict (as opposed to will or should convict) then the matter should be left to the jury. The judgement was to do with the murder of Robert Hamil.

Genuine question - why in some trials can previous convictions be revealed and used and in others they cant?

For the purposes of sentencing the judge will always have a copy of the defendants record. It is generally only brought into the actual trial itself when the defendant makes the argument that they are of good character. The prosecution can then make an 'Bad Character' application to bring in your previous convictions as a means to rebut the good character arguments.

[nrico2006]

Just something that popped into my head regarding the key difference in the Robert Howard and Robert Black trials. No evidence on Black for the Curdy murder really, yet his past was the reason he was convicted. Jury in Howards trial were not allowed to be told of his previous murder convictions though and he got off.

[brokencrossbar1]

Just something that popped into my head regarding the key difference in the Robert Howard and Robert Black trials. No evidence on Black for the Curdy murder really, yet his past was the reason he was convicted. Jury in Howards trial were not allowed to be told of his previous murder convictions though and he got off.

The Defence have to basically 'open the door'.

[bennydorano]

Paddy Jackson for Clermont according to the Sunday Times.