The ulster rugby trial

[Syferus]

Great post Fionn.

+1. The hi jacking of this mostly by radical feminists is horrendous to watch. I nearly tweeted a reply to a handful of them but in the end I stopped myself. What could be gained by engaging with people like that.

So we can add 'radical feminists' to your list of enemies (alongside Roscommon, Monaghan and the British) and we only have Russia in your friends column so far.

By the way, the reaction is hysterical in places but to describe everyone annoyed with the verdict as a 'radical femnist' demeans both them and the case itself. There's lots of very valid grievances to be had with the way this case was handled and how rape trials in general play out that don't mark out someone as a radical if they voice them.

[brokencrossbar1]

Fionn what is said as part of a trial like this is privileged and therefore immune from ridiculous shit like defamation etc. The worst about a case like this is that it encourages extremes to voice their opinions online and feel like they are valid. This case in my opinion is an example of the best and worst things about our justice system. It became abundantly clearer as the case progressed that the case was very weak due to the inconsistency in the IPs story. In my opinion this was due in the first place to a very or police investigation. I honestly believe if they had done a better job then either there would have been a stronger case or no trial at all. I think they had a slapdash approach to evidence gathering.

No matter what there are 5 lives that have been put through hell, never mind the extended families. Whatever about your feelings about the defendants and their actions they are no different now then a lot of other lads who have been involved in seedy sex. We can sit on our moral high ground and tut tut but one thing I can tell you is that this type of behaviour is reflective of a lot of young people's behaviour in recent years. The proliferation of drink and recreational drugs along with a significantly higher level of disposable income available to 20-30 year olds has seen a shift in the moral compass. It may not mean there are rapes week in week out but there's a helluva lot of stuff going on

[HiMucker]

Sad case.  I honestly feel from what I have read, that the girl is telling the truth, and that she sill feel like this a horrible miscarriage of justice.  Equally I think the fellas in all probability didnt think they were doing anything wrong.  I agree with what AZ said in an earlier post, that she was probably an after thought to them.  The jury in all likelihood concluded that they reasonably believed she was consenting.  You have to accept their conclusion.  In my opinion the least likely scenario was that she was lying, or going along with it to save face. 
Honest question.  Does anyone think that the exact same trial in say 30 years time would have a different outcome?  The reason I ask is that as time goes on certain behaviours are becoming less and less socially acceptable.  Before anyone mentions it I know that the vast majority on here think that the fellas acted like arseholes already.

[David McKeown]

My €0.02

1. The returning of all verdicts of "not guilty"does not mean that the defendants were "proved innocent" because in the NI justice system (and pretty much all law systems based on common law) all defendants are given the presumption of innocence until proven or presumed otherwise in a court's judgement implying that they are not. So the defendants in question walked into court as innocent in the eyes of the law and walked out with nothing having changed for them in that regard.

2. The returning of all verdicts of "not guilty" does not mean necessarily that the jury felt the IP was lying. She might have, but the IP was not on trial here. The prosecution case here is for them to show, beyond "reasonable doubt", that the incident in question fulfilled the lawful definition of rape, sexual assault, perverting the course of justice etc. The IP in question probably believed that those who were accused had committed rape on her and likely still believes that to be the case, but the jury doesn't believe that the legal definition of rape has been reached in this case.

3. A reminder once again, the IP was not on trial. The suggestion that she should now be sued by the defendants for defamation is quite a silly one. David McKeown and BCB1 will likely know this better than I do, but I don't think you can defame, libel or slander someone in a courtroom between the defence and prosecution parties. It's possible that an IP in such a case like this could be charged after the trial for wasting police time, perjury etc. if during the course of the trial evidence comes to light that the accuser is clearly lying but from the limited amount of info I've seen from this trial there is nothing to suggest any of this occoured, nor is there any apparent public interest to do so.

4. Concerning the length of interrogation of the IP, it's the case that each of the four defendants teams' had the right to ask valid questions each concerning the charges that their client was up against, as opposed to just the one prosecution team interviewing each of the defendants so it's not a big surprise it went on for her as long as it did. As for some of the personal and intimate details of the IP being talked about or displayed in court, it is not only the right but also the best practice that the jury is informed as much as possible on the relevant details of the case in question and that with the presumption of innocence placed on the defendants it is up to the prosecution to state their case that they believe that the defendant is guilty, not for the defence to show that their party is innocent. By allowing certain questions to the IP that are possibly relevant to the case be made off-limits from being asked by the defence, potential evidence is being witheld and the risk of a miscarriage of justice is elevated, and avoiding a miscarriage of justice is as important as ensuring justice is delivered. I've not been in such a position but I have serious doubts that being questioned in court when you are party seeking redress is a pleasent experience most of the time, and that those cases which involve bodily harm or assault are among the hardest to cope with.

5. With all the fallout over the verdict, one thing that seem to be a common theme especially among #ibelieveher supporters (radfems especially) is that rape is being projected as something that only women can fall victim of, which is clearly untrue. At least in NI, you don't need to be born with a vagina, uterus & ovaries to be a victim of rape and to imply otherwise is to be dishonest. While statistics about female rape prosecutions in much of the western world are not known to have high levels of such crimes resulting in a successful prosecution, from my anecdotal experience (so certainly open to question) male rape victims suffer a bigger social stigma than female rape victims. Despite the evidence presented in court that the accused behaved as if they were Steve Stifler from American Pie, that in itself isn't a crime and the case has become a cause celebre of different social cultural movements in Ireland with sexism in both forms i.e. misogyny and misandry. It's been hijacked by numerous people with their own agendas - I really don't like using this term as it gets so easily thrown about by utter scumbags and others whom should know better, but "virtue signalling" is definitely playing a part here.

6. I learned a long, long time ago that on social media like Twitter, Facebook etc. that reasonable discussion on political and judicial issues are almost impossible to conduct. And that goes for many different political leanings across the board wherever it is from elements of feminism (most certainly not all feminists, but a loud minority) that blame every single thing on patriarchy, real or assumed, hardcore socialists and anarchists vowing to smash the state, neo-nazi alt-right arseholes whom are c*nts in general, MGTOW and "mens rights" movements that use the term to less support practical issues involving men in society but more as a cover for their hyper misogyny, professional conspiracy theorists and their followers/fellow travellers whom take issues of genuine concern over authority and industry and blow them up to suit their loony agendas and rasing their public profile & coining it while doing so (can also be accused against the likes of the SWP) etc. etc. basically concensus politics is falling apart with idealogical purity being demanded and the order of the day. Stop the world, I think I might just want to get the feck off.

Just a few points I would make.

1. You are quite correct about the defamation. Allegations made in criminal trials and the reporting of same are protected speech and not amenable to defamation litigation.

2. As I have stressed from the start the jury could have 100% believed the complaint and still acquitted 3 of the 4 defendants. I don't see a way that they could have believed her and not convicted McIlroy though. Unlike Olding and Jackson he didn't have the protection of a reasonable belief in consent. I therefore don't think it's an unfair assertion to say that the jury did not believe the complaint. At least in terms of the evidence she gave against McIlroy.

3. Rape trials are not like other trials. Special rules do apply about admissibility of evidence, who can appear, what questions can and can not be asked etc. Allowances are made for the type of cases it is but these can only go so far otherwise we run the risk of going too far.

4. As the law stands currently rape can only be committed by a man in Northern Ireland

[Tony Baloney]

I have to say lads in the >200 pages of this thread there has been a awful lot of oul pish posted, but David and BCB have been invaluable and their posts show that you have to sift through a lot the detritus to get that nugget of gold. There's one in the keg for youse. The thread in general shows there is life in the gaaboard after a low key few years.

[Milltown Row2]

I have to say lads in the >200 pages of this thread there has been a awful lot of oul pish posted, but David and BCB have been invaluable and their posts show that you have to sift through a lot the detritus to get that nugget of gold. There's one in the keg for youse. The thread in general shows there is life in the gaaboard after a low key few years.

I'd say BC1 would have that whole keg to himself! 

[Itchy]

Great post Fionn.

+1. The hi jacking of this mostly by radical feminists is horrendous to watch. I nearly tweeted a reply to a handful of them but in the end I stopped myself. What could be gained by engaging with people like that.

So we can add 'radical feminists' to your list of enemies (alongside Roscommon, Monaghan and the British) and we only have Russia in your friends column so far.

By the way, the reaction is hysterical in places but to describe everyone annoyed with the verdict as a 'radical femnist' demeans both them and the case itself. There's lots of very valid grievances to be had with the way this case was handled and how rape trials in general play out that don't mark out someone as a radical if they voice them.

f**k off you complete idiot.

[Syferus]

Great post Fionn.

+1. The hi jacking of this mostly by radical feminists is horrendous to watch. I nearly tweeted a reply to a handful of them but in the end I stopped myself. What could be gained by engaging with people like that.

So we can add 'radical feminists' to your list of enemies (alongside Roscommon, Monaghan and the British) and we only have Russia in your friends column so far.

By the way, the reaction is hysterical in places but to describe everyone annoyed with the verdict as a 'radical femnist' demeans both them and the case itself. There's lots of very valid grievances to be had with the way this case was handled and how rape trials in general play out that don't mark out someone as a radical if they voice them.

f**k off you complete idiot.

Typical response from you when called on your shiîte.

[Frank_The_Tank]

Great post Fionn.

+1. The hi jacking of this mostly by radical feminists is horrendous to watch. I nearly tweeted a reply to a handful of them but in the end I stopped myself. What could be gained by engaging with people like that.

So we can add 'radical feminists' to your list of enemies (alongside Roscommon, Monaghan and the British) and we only have Russia in your friends column so far.

By the way, the reaction is hysterical in places but to describe everyone annoyed with the verdict as a 'radical femnist' demeans both them and the case itself. There's lots of very valid grievances to be had with the way this case was handled and how rape trials in general play out that don't mark out someone as a radical if they voice them.

f**k off you complete idiot.

Typical response from you when called on your shiîte.

and when you are called out on your shite (countless times in this thread) you just ignore the post...

[Mayo4Sam]

They mentioned this case on the radio at some stage today so I looked it up

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/man-jailed-for-raping-woman-over-refusal-to-wear-condom-1.3425186?mode=amp

This is literally something that could have happened to anyone. Apparently implied consent doesn't constitute consent. Basically you can be getting down and dirty but if she doesn't specifically say it's ok it can be called rape.

This poor bastard is getting two years in jail

[gallsman]

They mentioned this case on the radio at some stage today so I looked it up

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/man-jailed-for-raping-woman-over-refusal-to-wear-condom-1.3425186?mode=amp

This is literally something that could have happened to anyone. Apparently implied consent doesn't constitute consent. Basically you can be getting down and dirty but if she doesn't specifically say it's ok it can be called rape.

This poor b**tard is getting two years in jail

What's wrong there? No unprotected sex was a clear rule between the parties and he penetrated her without wearing a condom. Pretty black and white in that case, no?

[Main Street]

3. A reminder once again, the IP was not on trial. The suggestion that she should now be sued by the defendants for defamation is quite a silly one. David McKeown and BCB1 will likely know this better than I do, but I don't think you can defame, libel or slander someone in a courtroom between the defence and prosecution parties. It's possible that an IP in such a case like this could be charged after the trial for wasting police time, perjury etc. if during the course of the trial evidence comes to light that the accuser is clearly lying but from the limited amount of info I've seen from this trial there is nothing to suggest any of this occoured, nor is there any apparent public interest to do so.

On that part, I thought it was obvious that she did not take the case against the defendants, the CPS did. She had no responsibility with that decision. She gave her statement to the police, she made her accusations,  she gave herself to be examined verbally, physically and emotionally, by police, a counselor and a medic. The investigation team handed all the evidence to the CPS and they decided to prosecute after testing the quality of the evidence. She had no say in that decision except for the obvious, that she would have to be prepared to give evidence in court.
Afaia her testimony in court was consistent  enough at least well within the boundaries, and she held on to her account against 4 different legal teams. She has nothing to answer for.

[gallsman]

3. A reminder once again, the IP was not on trial. The suggestion that she should now be sued by the defendants for defamation is quite a silly one. David McKeown and BCB1 will likely know this better than I do, but I don't think you can defame, libel or slander someone in a courtroom between the defence and prosecution parties. It's possible that an IP in such a case like this could be charged after the trial for wasting police time, perjury etc. if during the course of the trial evidence comes to light that the accuser is clearly lying but from the limited amount of info I've seen from this trial there is nothing to suggest any of this occoured, nor is there any apparent public interest to do so.

On that part, I thought it was obvious that she did not take the case against the defendants, the CPS did.

You would think so, wouldn't you? Based on the twitterverse today (and some neanderthals on this board) the concept of the state bringing the charges and prosecuting in a criminal case is not that well understood.

[magpie seanie]

They mentioned this case on the radio at some stage today so I looked it up

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/man-jailed-for-raping-woman-over-refusal-to-wear-condom-1.3425186?mode=amp

This is literally something that could have happened to anyone. Apparently implied consent doesn't constitute consent. Basically you can be getting down and dirty but if she doesn't specifically say it's ok it can be called rape.

This poor b**tard is getting two years in jail

Cop yourself on for heavens sake! f**king ridiculous comment.

[Mayo4Sam]

Why? I feel that is a very grey area. They were obviously fooling around for him to get close enough to put it in. I feel sorry for him. I can empathise with him