The ulster rugby trial

[Syferus]

Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

Did you call it 100% totally wrong or did the 11 impartial jurors do so.

You back the wrong f**king horse and are making excuses now.

You'd want to read what my first post in this thread after the verdict was, and then delete your post lightning quick.

why would i want to.

you've spouted shite here for 10 weeks on this topic of which you had as little understanding as most online as we weren't attending the trial. You accused anyone who had the temerity to suggest a not guilty verdict as being rape apologists. 4 innocent men were found not guilty by their peers in a court of law, not a Diplock court.....

the best thing you could do is f**k off into the sunset with that other gobshite Fearon

Doubling down on your misguided anger I see.

[Orchard park]

Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

Did you call it 100% totally wrong or did the 11 impartial jurors do so.

You back the wrong f**king horse and are making excuses now.

Bit of a strange analogy 

You think this is about picking the"winner"?

the poster i referred to was so absolute in his opinion it was all about he being correct and those who disagreed being rape apologists.

so for that poster yes it was about being proven right which hasnt happened so winning is appropriate for the discussion, not for the case itself

[Syferus]

Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

Did you call it 100% totally wrong or did the 11 impartial jurors do so.

You back the wrong f**king horse and are making excuses now.

Bit of a strange analogy 

You think this is about picking the"winner"?

the poster i referred to was so absolute in his opinion it was all about he being correct and those who disagreed being rape apologists.

so for that poster yes it was about being proven right which hasnt happened so winning is appropriate for the discussion, not for the case itself

Still going. When you realise you've missed your mark so wholly you're free to PM me your apology.

[Orchard park]

I can't think of something that more sums up an attitude of not taking sexual violence seriously than somebody attempting to score points off somebody else on the internet for "backing the wrong horse", like a ten year old Manchester United supporter trying to goad a classmate who supports Liverpool because Manchester United won 2-1.

It's absolutely weird.

And for so many men across the internet, that's been their main interest in this trial - to use it to goad women or anybody who believes the complainant told the truth, or feminists, or "feminazis" as they'd probably call them.

I believed the men to be guilty.

I am referring to the antics of this poster and some others who couldnt see the alternative opinion at all and used derisory terminology like rape apologists to try and hammer home their own preferences. I have no doubt if said poster decided at the start to "back" the defendants he would be gloating now

[gallsman]

Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

Did you call it 100% totally wrong or did the 11 impartial jurors do so.

You back the wrong f**king horse and are making excuses now.

Bit of a strange analogy 

You think this is about picking the"winner"?

the poster i referred to was so absolute in his opinion it was all about he being correct and those who disagreed being rape apologists.

so for that poster yes it was about being proven right which hasnt happened so winning is appropriate for the discussion, not for the case itself

Congrats on your big win. You must be delighted. 

[Orchard park]

Gallsman,

read one post up. I personally called the outcome totally the opposite of the jury, but was calling it like everyone else here on 2nd hand reports........

not winning or losing but the self righteous who put down everyone who predicted this outcome have their gearboxes destroyed trying to get into reverse

[Syferus]

Gallsman,

read one post up. I personally called the outcome totally the opposite of the jury, but was calling it like everyone else here on 2nd hand reports........

not winning or losing but the self righteous who put down everyone who predicted this outcome have their gearboxes destroyed trying to get into reverse

For someone tearing up at the eyes at what I said you really didn't actually read it, did you?

I've been very critical of the way rape trials are handled and very cynical about what the likely outcome was.

[seafoid]

Gallsman,

read one post up. I personally called the outcome totally the opposite of the jury, but was calling it like everyone else here on 2nd hand reports........

not winning or losing but the self righteous who put down everyone who predicted this outcome have their gearboxes destroyed trying to get into reverse

For someone tearing up at the eyes at what I said you really didn't actually read it, did you?

I've been very critical of the way rape trials are handled and very cynical about what the likely outcome was.

Syf

Here is a super Dermot Earley goal

https://twitter.com/officialgaa/status/978925414629433345

Maybe you should stick to commenting on football for a while

[quit yo jibbajabba]

I happened to be going into Laganside today when a sizeable vocal protest was ongoing. I noted as I was leaving someone who looked like they might be an organiser removing all the posters from the gate before dumping them on the grass nearby.

#ihatelitter

#ibelieveyou

[StGallsGAA]

David, do you know if the definition is different in the ROI jurisdiction?

It is as I know it can be committed recklessly in the republic. I would need to check but I also don't think consent is defined in statute although that may have changed in recent years.

I think it's along the lines of a man commits rape if he has intercourse with a person who did not consent and he either knew this or was reckless. I'm no expert though and I would need to do a little research.

No need bud.  We've plenty of experts on here apparently...

[brokencrossbar1]

Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

I have just read most of the posts that you made to this thread and you made no reference to why you argue that she was raped apart from repeating that she was telling the truth and this was a cover up by all the lads involved and the system is wrong. You repeatedly played the man and called the defendants rapists and i think at least 1 reference to a brutal gang rape. You said she was more consistent then they were but when anyone pointed out her inconsistencies you simply said something akin the lines of well what would you expect as she was traumatised. When anyone disagreed with you, the likes of MR2 or Asap Mor, you simply played the man and tried to belittle them and took a superiority complex approach and were very condescending to them. When people clearly called you out, like I did and others, for example over the whole idea of replacing the juror, you point blank refused to reply.  Your refusal to stand over why you think they were brutal rapists weakens your position. You have fallen back on the default that they may be not guilty but they are not  innocent yet but you refuse to acknowledge that you're on the wrong side of the law with you approach and you are absolutely no different to the #ibelieveher fundamentalist ones. For what it's worth I have spoken to people who work for the prosecution services and they were not even sure that they were guilty so if they were convinced how the hell could they convince a jury. The evidence was reflected in the outcome. They are innocent in the eyes of the law and that is a fact. In your eyes they are not and that is an opinion. Big difference   

[Syferus]

Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

I have just read most of the posts that you made to this thread and you made no reference to why you argue that she was raped apart from repeating that she was telling the truth and this was a cover up by all the lads involved and the system is wrong. You repeatedly played the man and called the defendants rapists and i think at least 1 reference to a brutal gang rape. You said she was more consistent then they were but when anyone pointed out her inconsistencies you simply said something akin the lines of well what would you expect as she was traumatised. When anyone disagreed with you, the likes of MR2 or Asap Mor, you simply played the man and tried to belittle them and took a superiority complex approach and were very condescending to them. When people clearly called you out, like I did and others, for example over the whole idea of replacing the juror, you point blank refused to reply.  Your refusal to stand over why you think they were brutal rapists weakens your position. You have fallen back on the default that they may be not guilty but they are not  innocent yet but you refuse to acknowledge that you're on the wrong side of the law with you approach and you are absolutely no different to the #ibelieveher fundamentalist ones. For what it's worth I have spoken to people who work for the prosecution services and they were not even sure that they were guilty so if they were convinced how the hell could they convince a jury. The evidence was reflected in the outcome. They are innocent in the eyes of the law and that is a fact. In your eyes they are not and that is an opinion. Big difference

The eyes of the justice system and what the evidence suggests are two very different things, as the reaction shows you. No one has the responsibility to treat the four defendants as totally innocent if they do not feel they are just because the threshold for criminal conviction was not reached.

To pretend you too have no biases in this case would be a lie. At its core this is a very emotive issue. It's all about being up front about them and those who try to pretend they are simply objective and detached tended to be the people most obviously biased against the woman, and by extension rape victims in general. And given this is GAABoard, with its incredibly consistent ability to misread what is said, I'm not saying you are one of those.

[trileacman]

Like the above piece the only things we will read online and in print for the next few days will be unbalanced and pointing out the distress the girl has had to go through (which she undoubtedly had to).

It will take a brave person  (or unwise) to go against the grain and put a piece in from the boys perspective.

Eh? Have you looked at social media? Trying to make martyrs out of these lads because there wasn't enough to convict them in a criminal case is rich in the extreme. They've already got more support than their actions declswrved.

Can I ask a question Syferus,  you have steadfastly believed they are guilty. Please summarise why you thingbso.

If you want to see why you're free to look at my previous posts in this thread. I'm not going through it from square one again.

I see nrico falling into the trap of equating the verdict of not guilty with innocence despite it being said upwards of twenty times that's not the case. Some here seem to think a not guilty verdict is like deleting a save in a video game and everything resets, with every bit of evidence of wrongdoing being considered incorrect or lies. That ain't how it works.

I have just read most of the posts that you made to this thread and you made no reference to why you argue that she was raped apart from repeating that she was telling the truth and this was a cover up by all the lads involved and the system is wrong. You repeatedly played the man and called the defendants rapists and i think at least 1 reference to a brutal gang rape. You said she was more consistent then they were but when anyone pointed out her inconsistencies you simply said something akin the lines of well what would you expect as she was traumatised. When anyone disagreed with you, the likes of MR2 or Asap Mor, you simply played the man and tried to belittle them and took a superiority complex approach and were very condescending to them. When people clearly called you out, like I did and others, for example over the whole idea of replacing the juror, you point blank refused to reply.  Your refusal to stand over why you think they were brutal rapists weakens your position. You have fallen back on the default that they may be not guilty but they are not  innocent yet but you refuse to acknowledge that you're on the wrong side of the law with you approach and you are absolutely no different to the #ibelieveher fundamentalist ones. For what it's worth I have spoken to people who work for the prosecution services and they were not even sure that they were guilty so if they were convinced how the hell could they convince a jury. The evidence was reflected in the outcome. They are innocent in the eyes of the law and that is a fact. In your eyes they are not and that is an opinion. Big difference

The eyes of the justice system and what the evidence suggests are two very different things, as the reaction shows you. No one has the responsibility to treat the four defendants as totally innocent if they do not feel they are just because the threshold for criminal conviction was not reached.

To pretend you too have no biases in this case would be a lie. At its core this is a very emotive issue. It's all about being up front about them and those who try to pretend they are simply objective and detached tended to be the people most obviously biased against the woman, and by extension rape victims in general. And given this is GAABoard, with its incredibly consistent ability to misread what is said, I'm not saying you are one of those.

What about the eyes of the 3 women who found the defendants not guilty?

[Aughafad]

With all the talk on here regarding the 4 guys being found not guilty and a lot of so called experts jumping on the "they weren't found innocent" line, I found this response from a UK based solicitor to be interesting
From a lawyer's blog:

When I am interviewing potential clients, I hear on a regular basis that "I'm innocent". It goes in one ear and out the other with me. I don't care if you're innocent. I care if you are "Not Guilty". So what is the difference? If you are innocent, you are absolutely without fault in all aspects. You are a victim of a terrible injustice and everyone should give you their pity. Congratulations, you have it! But you still face all the consequences of being charged with a criminal offense. If you are not guilty, you perhaps did not do the crime, [or] there was no crime, [or] they arrested the wrong person, [or] they could not prove their case; any one or combination of the above can produce the "not guilty" verdict.

[whitey]

So after 200 odd pages what are the lessons to be learned from this sorry episode?