Paddy Jackson & Stuart Olding Face Rape Charges

[die_mole]

Ok, I see your point. However this is surely only applicable when a crime has still been permitted... Not what has happened in this situation

it comes down to the burden of proof thing. I could see a civil court saying that there is enough evidence to hold them responsible for any therapy/medical costs but who knows.

I'm mainly just a pedantic law type.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

I can understand this point of view, but it also seems like it just places so much onus on the girl to do everything. If she doesnt verbally consent is it then withdrawing her consent to say she didn't want to after the fact? Is it not also fair to give the benefit of the doubt to a purported victim of a crime with notoriously low conviction rates?

You're then destroying one of the pillars law has been built on throughout history.

Is it worse for a guilty man/woman to walk free or an innocent one to go to prison? I'd argue the latter.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Genuienly didnt know that about NI law, they def a bit of a sh*t law that'll hopefully be looked at in the future.

Saw a tweet that summed it up for me anyway:

"You don't need to be a monster to be a rapist. You only need to be entitled enough, and to act with a disregard for the other person."

I'll likely try and leave it there as little bit sick of the focusing on the whole sh*tshow.

Its taken from England and Wales' act, same here too. There's a high standard for what is reasonable and its not what this case was decided on, I just used it as an example of how an accusation can be made, for it not to be false but for it not to lead to a guilty verdict either.

 

[jcahill1]

You're then destroying one of the pillars law has been built on throughout history.

Is it worse for a guilty man/woman to walk free or an innocent one to go to prison? I'd argue the latter.

I am not saying they should be convicted. They should have been acquitted, and the jury did their duty, as I mentioned in my earlier post.

In the first part of my post I was asking about whether you believe the woman is solely responsible for ensuring the man believes she is consenting (or vice versa). Apologies if that wasn't clear.

I am not seeking to tear down the pillars of our law system, just trying to highlight that there's a lot of victims of rape out there who will never be able to get convictions. I am sure you know some of them. They lose out in our system, and they are where my sympathies lie.

 

[Amiga500]

Another girl walked in, observed she was enjoying it (at that time). Not being restrained by accused. I don't know of a means of oral sex that can be performed while "frozen".


Its very hard to draw anything but the opinion; she consented, then later changing her mind after (or I suppose, during) the deed.

 

[Amiga500]

just trying to highlight that there's a lot of victims of rape out there who will never be able to get convictions. I am sure you know some of them. They lose out in our system, and they are where my sympathies lie.

They won't have been helped by having such a flimsy case took to court and the media circus surrounding it...

About the best thing that could come out of this would be; complete anonymity for all parties until the verdict is reached - and only guilty parties are then identified post case.

 

[jcahill1]

Another girl walked in, observed she was enjoying it (at that time). Not being restrained by accused. I don't know of a means of oral sex that can be performed while "frozen".


Its very hard to draw anything but the opinion; she consented, then later changing her mind after (or I suppose, during) the deed.

Believe the quotes were that she didn't seem distressed. Not quite the same thing. I would also argue that you can certainly perform oral sex when frozen.

However I agree with your second post completely, helped no one in this situation having a media circus.

 

[j'nuh]

The biggest trouble with public discourse on these types of trials is that innocent and inconclusive verdicts are lumped together as not guilty. It makes sense from a legal perspective, as in both cases you would not want to punish the defendant, but it does invite the public to then make their own minds up about these people. IMO, it would be better if juries also provided a recommendation on whether they came to their not guilty decision because the evidence was inconclusive, or whether it is because there is compelling evidence for innocence. In the latter case, it would go some way to exonerating some people in the court of public opinion.

I generally think it is likelier that the person making the accusation is telling the truth. False accusations certainly occur, but they are unlikely.

They won't have been helped by having such a flimsy case took to court and the media circus surrounding it...

About the best thing that could come out of this would be; complete anonymity for all parties until the verdict is reached - and only guilty parties are then identified post case.

The trouble is that it is extremely difficult to prove rape/sexual assault, and one of the only ways of doing this is having multiple people coming forward. If the case isn't publicised then others aren't going to come forward.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

The biggest trouble with public discourse on these types of trials is that innocent and inconclusive verdicts are lumped together as not guilty. It makes sense from a legal perspective, as in both cases you would not want to punish the defendant, but it does invite the public to then make their own minds up about these people. IMO, it would be better if juries also provided a recommendation on whether they came to their not guilty decision because the evidence was inconclusive, or whether it is because there is compelling evidence for innocence. In the latter case, it would go some way to exonerating some people in the court of public opinion.

I generally think it is likelier that the person making the accusation is telling the truth. False accusations certainly occur, but they are unlikely.

I get what you mean, but I think a unanimous jury decision is rarely gonna occur on the basis of not enough evidence

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

No surprise there then. The judge had to lead the jury by saying you might have concerns about some people's (i.e. the complainer's) lack of memory.

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-northern-ireland-43538927

She also insisted on a unanimous verdict. This is effectively legal speak for:

"Who brought such a crock of **** into my courtroom and wasted 9 weeks time on this? Do everything in your power to send a message that whatever those men may be, they are not rapists".

Really disappointed to hear that so many disbelieve the female witness who says she saw the complainer clearly consenting whilst in the middle of a sex act. But mud sticks I suppose.

Ulster will feel unable to play these players due to public misconception, the complainer gets anonymity and the ability to protest her chasteness to her social circle and the world just gets a little bit madder.

 

[snoopy snoopy dog dog]

I have only paid passing interest in the case so am far from an authority on it but the fact that the jury came back with a unanimous verdict so quickly speaks volumes.

The four acquitted should be free to continue their professional careers without any prejudice but I think we know in the case of Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding, they'll forever be tarnished. They should have had the right to anonymity just as the complainant did.

I have no issue with them playing for an Irish province and for Ireland again. I could completely understand both of them wanting to get the hell away from Belfast and looking for a fresh start away from the public glare.

The #IBelieveHer hashtag trending on twitter right now is hugely misguided and insulting to the four people acquitted. There's no doubt those espousing those views didn't pay as close attention to the case as a jury who acquitted the accused in extremely short time. Rape is a disgusting crime to commit and should but a jury found the accused not guilty of all charges in a very short amount of time. I'll take their word for it. That people may find the sexual activities of those involved somewhat perverted is a different story but it's their personal lives and they're free to do as they wish once it's not illegal.

 

[Hanley!]

This is a tough one for me to get my head around. Due to the inconclusive evidence and the contradictions in stories between all involved, I think a verdict of not guilty is the right one. But I believe that she's telling the truth. A traumatised rape victim contradicting herself a bit sounds more realistic to me than four innocent friends having vastly different recollections of the same event.

There wasn't enough evidence to convict, I understand that. But the verdict doesn't suddenly change my opinion of Jackson and Olding to the point where I want to see them in a rugby jersey ever again. I would genuinely have trouble supporting an Irish squad that included Paddy Jackson going forwards. I think I'd have a hard time cheering for the team with him on the field, to the point where I'd be less likely to watch the games. Would that be unfair, considering the not guilty verdict? Maybe, but that doesn't change how I feel.

Another girl walked in, observed she was enjoying it (at that time). Not being restrained by accused. I don't know of a means of oral sex that can be performed while "frozen".

Without arguing the particulars of this case, I just wanted to point out that these are two of the lamest rape defenses out there. Non consensual sex can still be physically pleasurable, while being damaging mentally and emotionally. And rape doesn't require physical restraint. If they forced themselves on her and she felt threatened, then she could have complied out of fear. Don't point to this stuff as evidence that a rape wasn't taking place, it's careless and ignorant. It sets a tougher and tougher precedent for rape victims to try and overcome.

 

[Amiga500]

Without arguing the particulars of this case, I just wanted to point out that these are two of the lamest rape defenses out there. Non consensual sex can still be physically pleasurable, while being damaging mentally and emotionally. And rape doesn't require physical restraint. If they forced themselves on her and she felt threatened, then she could have complied out of fear. Don't point to this stuff as evidence that a rape wasn't taking place, it's careless and ignorant. It sets a tougher and tougher precedent for rape victims to try and overcome.

So if one party doesn't say no, goes along with it and enjoys it - just how the f**k is the other party supposed to know its non-consensual?

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

http://rugbylad.ie/paddy-jackson-stuart-olding-pursue-privacy-lawsuit-bbc/

Jackson and Olding pursuing a lawsuit against the BBC.

Hope it works out for them tbh.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

http://rugbylad.ie/paddy-jackson-stuart-olding-pursue-privacy-lawsuit-bbc/

Jackson and Olding pursuing a lawsuit against the BBC.

Hope it works out for them tbh.

Fantastic, would set a dangerous precedent if they lost

 

[truthteller]

Even those present throughout agreed with the unanimous verdict. not guilty of a crime. bur clearly guilty of behaving like idiots

 

[munstermuffin]

Even those present throughout agreed with the unanimous verdict. not guilty of a crime. bur clearly guilty of behaving like idiots

And there is a big difference there between the 2 that alot don't seem to understand. Lads were no angels and definitely were more than idiots. But were they criminals

 

[truthteller]

they were idiots she was pretty idiotic too albeit in a more naive way....their reputations are destroyed forever and theyve lost 2 years of their lives destroyed by social media and mainstream.....theyre innocent of a crime, but guilty of being arseholes...is that enough punishment? I think so

 

[Hanley!]

So if one party doesn't say no, goes along with it and enjoys it - just how the f**k is the other party supposed to know its non-consensual?

Again without speculating on the particulars of this case, you can't make an assumption that the first party did not say no based only on the fact that they seemed to be enjoying the sex at one particular point. If the first party declines and the second party then forces them to comply, they can still derive some physical pleasure from the act itself. The body has a mind of its own.

To avoid miscommunications, a good place for men to start is to just never force themselves on women. Consent needs to come first. You can't wait until during or afterwards. If a man throws a woman down on a couch or a bed out of nowhere, lies on top of her and starts kissing her, that's aggressive. The woman might feel confused or threatened and kiss him back, not knowing how he'll react if she tries to push him off. But for obvious reasons the guy could interpret this as her reciprocating his interest. And both parties wind up with very different impressions of the same event.

Alcohol makes these situations worse, because the guy can become less perceptive to the signals they're being given, and the woman can feel less in control.

Consent is tricky. Both sides of this particular case would probably like to treat rape as a black and white issue, but there is plenty of grey area there. It's a ******* complicated issue. That's why it's so important to communicate and to not make assumptions.

The deck is stacked against rape victims. It's extremely difficult to get justice, and most accusers don't. Even though everything we know suggests that the percentage of false accusations is relatively low, it's just too hard to prove that a rape has taken place. To even make an accusation, the victim has to put themselves through a whole new kind of hell, while knowing the whole time that it probably won't do any good. Who would want to go through what the claimant went through over the course of this trial? Both the details of what she went through and the verdict itself will be incentive for future rape victims to not come forward.

That's why it's so important to stop this stuff from happening in the first place, and the best way to achieve that is through communication and people having larger discussions about consent. If one party is put in a position where they feel like they've been raped, it's not good enough for the other party to throw their arms in the air and say "how the **** was I supposed to know?"

Just make sure you know. Make sure all parties are crystal clear where they stand and go from there.

 

[truthteller]

i know of loads of women who force themselves on men..who grope men and men need to start to complain too..even guyts whove woken up drunk to find themselves being straddled....this works both ways....the woman is just as respsonsible when she is drunk as to her behaviour. but i agree men must be mega mega cautious and careful at all times...however it must be fact based evidence not trial by gossip slander, media or social media