Messages

Would recommend to everyone, add legal costs to your house insurance, be the best £50 quid you spend

And for car insurance

Oh I disagree entirely. I had it on mine and the legal advice they were providing was diabolical. Particularly if you have an English insurer who was doesn't appreciate the difference in road traffic law between England and Northern Ireland.

House insurance may be different but only if it as a minimum allows you to choose from a fairly wide panel of solicitors. Some do and some don't.

Currently using it and there are some hoops to jump through but they handed to a team here who are taking it on board. That's through the house insurance though

I've no experience with house insurance but when I had a car accident I was referred to my insurers legal department. They recommended a 50/50 split when my car was stationery and was hit from behind at about 50 mph and the driver had been convicted of careless driving.

Suffice to say I quickly moved on and received about 10x the compensation they were suggesting they'd secure.

Would recommend to everyone, add legal costs to your house insurance, be the best £50 quid you spend

And for car insurance

Oh I disagree entirely. I had it on mine and the legal advice they were providing was diabolical. Particularly if you have an English insurer who was doesn't appreciate the difference in road traffic law between England and Northern Ireland.

House insurance may be different but only if it as a minimum allows you to choose from a fairly wide panel of solicitors. Some do and some don't.

Yeah, I thought it was forward for that first try, as well. Why did Irish players not try and get a review?

SA should certainly have got the early yellow, but they reckon Ireland could've got a couple more yellows themselves. I suppose the ref. didn't want it becoming even more ridiculous so had to let a couple of things slide.

As I say no issues with the Irish cards and there could have been one more I thought but the point is does it get to that stage if the other calls had been consistently applied?  I suppose we will never know. I suppose we will never know what might have been

A strange game on the whole for me.


The scrum was always going to be an area of concern for Ireland so best avoided at all costs so knock ons etc need to be kept to the bare minimum so the restart knock ons were a disaster for Ireland.

Poor Porter was absolutely pulverised last night and will have slept like a baby, he was fucked long before it was over but it has to be noticed that Furlong had the better of his respective opponents.

I'm not sure how Ireland counteract such dominance going forward. 

SA didn't show a whole pile else other than the scrum and line out whilst Ireland did show a bit of a threat when they did get a bit of ball and territory and they maybe should have taken a penalty or two rather than kick for touch .

Other than not giving the SA lad a yellow card early on I don't think the referee was overly bad.  Ryan has only himself to blame, total mind fart and Porter could have got a second yellow late on with some of the other yellow cards were out of pure despair from Ireland.

Take the Rassie behaviour at the end as a compliment lads.

I thought the ref was incredibly inconsistent. No issue with any of the Ireland cards but the worse infringement of the day was Sacha on O'Brien and no card.

Prendergast goes for multiple team fouls inside the 22 despite a score but then 2 minutes later ref awards 3 penalties against the boks inside the 22 (and misses a high tackle) and when asked by Doris why no (at least) warning replies you scored.

He misses a very obvious forward pass on first South African try. All of those things have big impacts on the game in terms of frustrating and ultimately tiring players. I think a better ref that could have been a very good game.

Demolished at the scrum, demolished in the air, lacking the strength in depth  and on the wrong side of crucial decisions yet only lost by 11. Clearly a team in transition but I think there's a lot to build on.

I think the Ireland try showed the difference in refereeing approach. 3 penalties given inside the 22 and a high tackle missed nothing said because Ireland scored. When the roles were reversed two minutes earlier yellow given.

I think that confirms had the ref made the correct first decision it too would have been upgraded.

Ryan will now correctly get a red for a less serious tackle

How was that not red?  It looks like he moves his shoulder into O'Briens head.

@David McKeown
If she's not fit to enter a plea, never mind stand trial, what happens to the charges against her??

They are setting it up so *if* Elaine Donaldson gets a ruling that she's unfit to plead so at trial, Jeffrey can claim his (now absent) wife was to blame as the main instigator and he acted under duress from her. She provides a statement confirming this without having to attend court.
Jeff gets a light sentence and she gets to walk as under medical care.

If Paddy Power accepts odds, put your house on this outcome.

The her providing a statement without attending trial would be very difficult. Also duress of circumstance is a defence not mitigation.

So I wouldn't recommend backing this particular long shot

Legally, what is the angle they are playing at here (bar actually being "sick" of course).  Are they just kicking the can down the road? Is that all they hope to get out of this if she is found capable of standing trial?

I don't think there's any playing here at all. The legal team obviously have concerns over her fitness, at least one expert clearly shares those concerns.

It advantages no one for her to be deemed unfit to plead. Hospital Orders are not to be sniffed at.

Wake up and smell the coffee David. They are playing the same game as Iris Robinson...

Is it just the defence legal team or is the prosecution in on it too?  Did they hoodwink the RQIA appointed doctor as well?  What about the Judge? Oh and for what gain? So that she can have a finding of fact against her without really being able to challenge the evidence and then have to spend considerable time under a hospital order?

Does a finding of fact come with prison time? Would the defendant be in some sort of institution for severe mental health issues if this was the reason there was no trial?

It comes with one of three possible outcomes. Given the seriousness of the charges if there is a finding of fact that an individual did the act alleged then a hospital order is the most likely outcome.  A hospital order is a form of detention and is a direct alternative to prison. Decisions on on detention and release/leave etc are made by MHRT but restrictions on same can and usually are made by the court. It's certainly not an easy alternative

@David McKeown
If she's not fit to enter a plea, never mind stand trial, what happens to the charges against her??

They are setting it up so *if* Elaine Donaldson gets a ruling that she's unfit to plead so at trial, Jeffrey can claim his (now absent) wife was to blame as the main instigator and he acted under duress from her. She provides a statement confirming this without having to attend court.
Jeff gets a light sentence and she gets to walk as under medical care.

If Paddy Power accepts odds, put your house on this outcome.

The her providing a statement without attending trial would be very difficult. Also duress of circumstance is a defence not mitigation.

So I wouldn't recommend backing this particular long shot

Legally, what is the angle they are playing at here (bar actually being "sick" of course).  Are they just kicking the can down the road? Is that all they hope to get out of this if she is found capable of standing trial?

I don't think there's any playing here at all. The legal team obviously have concerns over her fitness, at least one expert clearly shares those concerns.

It advantages no one for her to be deemed unfit to plead. Hospital Orders are not to be sniffed at.

Wake up and smell the coffee David. They are playing the same game as Iris Robinson...

Is it just the defence legal team or is the prosecution in on it too?  Did they hoodwink the RQIA appointed doctor as well?  What about the Judge? Oh and for what gain? So that she can have a finding of fact against her without really being able to challenge the evidence and then have to spend considerable time under a hospital order?

@David McKeown
If she's not fit to enter a plea, never mind stand trial, what happens to the charges against her??

They are setting it up so *if* Elaine Donaldson gets a ruling that she's unfit to plead so at trial, Jeffrey can claim his (now absent) wife was to blame as the main instigator and he acted under duress from her. She provides a statement confirming this without having to attend court.
Jeff gets a light sentence and she gets to walk as under medical care.

If Paddy Power accepts odds, put your house on this outcome.

The her providing a statement without attending trial would be very difficult. Also duress of circumstance is a defence not mitigation.

So I wouldn't recommend backing this particular long shot

Legally, what is the angle they are playing at here (bar actually being "sick" of course).  Are they just kicking the can down the road? Is that all they hope to get out of this if she is found capable of standing trial?

I don't think there's any playing here at all. The legal team obviously have concerns over her fitness, at least one expert clearly shares those concerns.

It advantages no one for her to be deemed unfit to plead. Hospital Orders are not to be sniffed at.

@David McKeown
If she's not fit to enter a plea, never mind stand trial, what happens to the charges against her??

They are setting it up so *if* Elaine Donaldson gets a ruling that she's unfit to plead so at trial, Jeffrey can claim his (now absent) wife was to blame as the main instigator and he acted under duress from her. She provides a statement confirming this without having to attend court.
Jeff gets a light sentence and she gets to walk as under medical care.

If Paddy Power accepts odds, put your house on this outcome.

The her providing a statement without attending trial would be very difficult. Also duress of circumstance is a defence not mitigation.

So I wouldn't recommend backing this particular long shot

[If]

You would want to see them split then...

If your man is guilty of what they say he is then he needs to be locked up and shamed for what he is. If he's innocent he should be cleared too.

Splitting the trials may end up happening but it's completely undesirable to have the complainants to have to give evidence twice. Potentially not fair on the defendants either in terms of admissibility of evidence that may arise. It's quite complete

@David McKeown
If she's not fit to enter a plea, never mind stand trial, what happens to the charges against her??

A fact finding hearing where a jury will determine if she did the acts alleged. This is different to a trial and to a finding of guilt.

If she did the acts alleged she will be made subject to a hospital order.