Paddy Jackson & Stuart Olding Face Rape Charges

[j'nuh]

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?

By either agreeing to, or being enthusiastic about having sex. Pleasure doesn't really mean much since it can be involuntary. Many rape survivors experience pleasure and even orgasm when they were raped. (See: https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-05/science-arousal-during-rape)

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

They were found not guilty, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were innocent. The burden of proof is rightly on those who make the accusation. Just because the accuser cannot meet that burden doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's similar to how I can claim that I had yoghurt for breakfast this morning but there is absolutely no way I would be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[Hanley!]

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

It can absolutely work both ways. It's just more frequently man on woman for a variety of reasons. But we should try and be consistent with it too. It's hard not to notice the different reactions to statutory rape depending on whether the victim was a boy or a girl. If a teenage boy is preyed on by an older woman, some people don't see it as a big deal, which is never the case when a teenage girl is preyed on by an older man. Both should be treated as unacceptable.

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

They were found not guilty, but that doesn't necessarily mean they were innocent. The burden of proof is rightly on those who make the accusation. Just because the accuser cannot meet that burden doesn't mean it didn't happen. It's similar to how I can claim that I had yoghurt for breakfast this morning but there is absolutely no way I would be able to prove that beyond a reasonable doubt.

This is a bit pedantic but it's been bugging me how often I've seen it. Being found not guilty does mean they're innocent, it's literally the definition of innocent, the prosecution not meeting the standard of proof renders the accused as innocent as they were walking into the court. What it doesn't mean is that they definitely didn't commit the crime that may have taken place.

 

[truthteller]

they are innocent. period. nunch of idiots yes but innocent of rape. landslide verdict by jury and ALL who attended throughout agreed.

 

[Amiga500]

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.

She, by her own admission, did not say no.

Also - given what she was observed doing - its hard to see how it could be anything but voluntary.

Consent needs to come first.

Is there a written consent form folks should get signed before starting or something?

One thing leads to another. If you start along with that the first step, then unless you clearly, very, very clearly, break it off and indicate no more, the other party will keep going.

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

This is a bit pedantic but it's been bugging me how often I've seen it. Being found not guilty does mean they're innocent, it's literally the definition of innocent, the prosecution not meeting the standard of proof renders the accused as innocent as they were walking into the court. What it doesn't mean is that they definitely didn't commit the crime that may have taken place.

It's a thing I like about the Scottish system - there are three possible verdicts.

Guilty = jury believes you did the crime and that there is sufficient evidence.

Not Proven = jury believes you could have done the crime but that there is insufficient evidence to back up their feeling.

Not Guilty = jury believes you are innocent and that the evidence supports your innocence.

The "not proven" allows a "not guilty" verdict to come with a higher degree of exhonoration. There are repeated calls to remove "not proven" in Scotland, primarily as they feel it reducing the proportion of sexual offences resulting in a guilty verdict. Many would prefer be the coin toss of guilty vs not guilty even if it lead to a much lower evidence threshold when putting a guy with no previous convictions behind bars for several years. I personally think that would be a travesty to remove it. The majority seem so casual about the rights of someone accused of a crime and that's what makes me so indignant sometimes.

I feel this case would definitely have been a "not guilty" in Scotland given the evidence from an independent female witness. In those circumstances I'd question why it went to trial as how could anyone possibly pick the evidence of a female complainer over that of an independent female witness?

There are other aspects I haven't touched on in this thread because it is a little distasteful to the complainer - but for those in doubt about the verdict read the evidence regarding her attitude to sex, full body tanning and the presence of fake tanning stains on the clothing she wore on the night.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

What is going on with the juror now?

Apparently one of them talked about it on a comment section of a online news site....

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

What is going on with the juror now?

Apparently one of them talked about it on a comment section of a online news site....

Pretty much, could be found in contempt of court. It was literally the last instruction the judge gave to the jury.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

Pretty much, could be found in contempt of court. It was literally the last instruction the judge gave to the jury.

what a plonker.

 

[Groundhog]

Was the bloody foreman/woman too.

 

[Chief Pete]

Heard a rumour Jackson's been offered to Chiefs, don't know how true though...

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

Anyone know what she said?

 

[Groundhog]

Heard a rumour Jackson's been offered to Chiefs, don't know how true though...

That's been swirling around a good bit. Rumor goes it was agreed upon before the trial should they be found innocent.

 

[Amiga500]

Heard a rumour Jackson's been offered to Chiefs, don't know how true though...

Steenson going back home?

 

[Horacito]

Jackson has been sacked, they say he'll never play for Ireland or Ulster again, ever.
Anyone from Ireland willing to comment on this? Is it ok to sack someone just because he is a dirtbag in his private life?

Cheers

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

See the Ulster thread for discussion.

https://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/the-ulster-thread.30098/page-27

And although it's not how I'd behave I don't think there is any indication Jackson was a "dirtbag", just promiscuous after a drunken night out. The unsavoury text messages came from the other accused from what I'd read.

 

[McTallshort]

See the Ulster thread for discussion.

https://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/the-ulster-thread.30098/page-27

And although it's not how I'd behave I don't think there is any indication Jackson was a "dirtbag", just promiscuous after a drunken night out. The unsavoury text messages came from the other accused from what I'd read.

Imagine it was your daughter

 

[Leonormous Boozer]

Imagine it was your daughter

I hate that argument. What if your daughter wanted it?

 

[Horacito]

Well, in my personal opinion, anybody who speaks like that about a woman or man he/she has had sex with, it's a dirtbag. It's only appropiate to this day and age to talk about someone you banged with a name lesser than human: skank, whore, *****, etc, and then brag about it in whatsapp group, which is childish and ominous but actually quite harmless thing to do. This is the stereotypical anglosaxon knob: going to other places to have sex with some local woman and then brag about it with your mates in a pub when comingback from devastating Mallorca puking evertwhere. I can almost see Paddy Jackson's shrimp tan from here.

But, and here it comes: Paddy Jackson is a hell of a rugby player. A rugby team sacking a competent rugby player seems to me quite wrong. There's no way out of that.

 

[Thingimubob]

Well, in my personal opinion, anybody who speaks like that about a woman or man he/she has had sex with, it's a dirtbag. It's only appropiate to this day and age to talk about someone you banged with a name lesser than human: skank, whore, *****, etc, and then brag about it in whatsapp group, which is childish and ominous but actually quite harmless thing to do. This is the stereotypical anglosaxon knob: going to other places to have sex with some local woman and then brag about it with your mates in a pub when comingback from devastating Mallorca puking evertwhere. I can almost see Paddy Jackson's shrimp tan from here.

But, and here it comes: Paddy Jackson is a hell of a rugby player. A rugby team sacking a competent rugby player seems to me quite wrong. There's no way out of that.

As much as I agree with a lot of what your saying, might wanna re-think calling anyone Irish "Anglo-Saxon"...