The Rugby Thread

oldbilly wrote: Sad and tawdry episode this with no winners . If anything it shows how women are objectified and judged solely on their appearance by young males in Irish society. Women seem to be under pressure to look and act in a certain way to appear “attractive” to the “lads”. Fellas too must behave like cavemen in order to fit in, all very very sad. Thank f**k I’m an oul lad! At least some of my generation had a bit of individuality.

Not just young lads. Look at another thread on here -)).   

Roberto Baggio wrote: What are we "judging for ourselves" in the pics that you've posted Sid?

I'd say it was Dara Florence's evidence that exonerated the goys.

sid waddell wrote: SuperDave84 wrote: That sort of stuff is very dangerous. If these lads had been convicted, those comments could well have formed the basis of an appeal, depending on the content. More often than not, I'd guess juries either don't understand exactly what the judge said to them, or they do something they shouldn't when deliberating. The fact they only have to answer yeay or nay is what saves them. Now if they've acquitted these lads in a way they shouldn't have done, what then? I don't know what possible outcome there can be. The verdict would have to stand but it is very, very unsatisfactory. What chance of it being deemed a mistrial after the fact? If the juror is now in trouble with the law, will their phone and computer be searched? What if it turns out they had been reading online commentary on sites such as this during the trial and been influenced by that?

I think all that is very unlikely. I don't think the CPS would have the stomach for it, tbh. The juror may be made an example of by the CPS, in that she could be prosecuted, but I think that's as far is it is likely to go. Her phone may be searched but they might need a warrant for that - I'm not sure how it works in the UK.

A mistrial declaration after a trial that resulted in an acquittal would be very, very unsatisfactory. It would be quite disturbing, if I'm honest. I can't think of examples of something like this happening resulting in a not guilty verdict being quashed and it shouldn't. There has to be finality to an acquittal.

See, it is the word of one juror. If this juror says the jury did things they shouldn't have done, what then? Do the police interview the other jurors? Are the police allowed to do that? Can the other jurors say anything to the police? Would interviewing the other jurors about their deliberations be conspiracy to commit contempt of court? It is unbelievably messy - all the police should be concerned with now is whether this juror has in fact done anything wrong in revealing the nature of the deliberations. The consequences, if so, should be visited on the juror only.

sid waddell wrote: Roberto Baggio wrote: What are we "judging for ourselves" in the pics that you've posted Sid?     Well, I'll give you my main judgements from those photographs.  Paddy Jackson was more polluted than Chernobyl in the last four days of April 1986.  And Dara Florence was stone cold sober.

SuperDave84 wrote: sid waddell wrote: SuperDave84 wrote: That sort of stuff is very dangerous. If these lads had been convicted, those comments could well have formed the basis of an appeal, depending on the content. More often than not, I'd guess juries either don't understand exactly what the judge said to them, or they do something they shouldn't when deliberating. The fact they only have to answer yeay or nay is what saves them. Now if they've acquitted these lads in a way they shouldn't have done, what then? I don't know what possible outcome there can be. The verdict would have to stand but it is very, very unsatisfactory. What chance of it being deemed a mistrial after the fact? If the juror is now in trouble with the law, will their phone and computer be searched? What if it turns out they had been reading online commentary on sites such as this during the trial and been influenced by that? I think all that is very unlikely. I don't think the CPS would have the stomach for it, tbh. The juror may be made an example of by the CPS, in that she could be prosecuted, but I think that's as far is it is likely to go. Her phone may be searched but they might need a warrant for that - I'm not sure how it works in the UK. A mistrial declaration after a trial that resulted in an acquittal would be very, very unsatisfactory. It would be quite disturbing, if I'm honest. I can't think of examples of something like this happening resulting in a not guilty verdict being quashed and it shouldn't. There has to be finality to an acquittal. See, it is the word of one juror. If this juror says the jury did things they shouldn't have done, what then? Do the police interview the other jurors? Are the police allowed to do that? Can the other jurors say anything to the police? Would interviewing the other jurors about their deliberations be conspiracy to commit contempt of court? It is unbelievably messy - all the police should be concerned with now is whether this juror has in fact done anything wrong in revealing the nature of the deliberations. The consequences, if so, should be visited on the juror only.

SuperDave84 wrote: But Sid, as you know, the law is not about "signs of positive consent", as you well know. You might want it to be, but it's not. The law is not "if she doesn't *explicitly* say yes, that means no". There may be places where it is, there may be movements in that direction here and in NI, but at the minute the law in NI is as has been outlined repeatedly. It's about the accused either knowing that there was not consent, or not reasonably believing that there was consent, coupled with the actual lack of consent. I shouldn't have to repeat that over and over, but your post seems to proceed on the basis it is something else. The fact she didn't say "yes, I want to have sex with you and I am giving my full, free and informed consent now for those acts to take place" doesn't make anyone guilty of rape. It depends entirely on the circumstances.

sid waddell wrote: horsebox wrote: I'd say it was Dara Florence's evidence that exonerated the goys. But Florence i) categorically contradicted Jackson and said that he was "100%" having vaginal sex with the complainant, as well as ii) stating that the complainant showed no signs of positive consent.  She also said that iii) she did not think she was witnessing a rape, but she was in no position to make that call for reasons which should be obvious. i) and ii) are facts as she saw them.  iii) is perception, not fact. There has been some online commentary using the #ibelieveher hashtag as regards Florence's evidence.  If you believe her, you also believe Jackson was lying and the complainant did not shows any signs of positive consent - which tallies with the complainant's story.

The medical evidence suggests that Jackson injured her vagina wall with his fingers and not his flute.

Florence's evidence plus at least 4 messages sent by the lads on Whatsapp would suggest that Jackson did have sex with her.