Jackson & Olding

[hugh_woatmeigh]

Latest bit of news is that PJs lawyers have issued proceedings against labour senator Aodhan Riordan for tweets he published and then deleted.
Another report says its a pre action libel correspondence which is thought to mean retract that statement or we will sue

The tweet said

"I want the woman at the centre of the Belfast rape case to know that she has been incredibly courageous and that I,and thousands of others, believe her.
The smug well-connected middle class boys win out again #Ibelieveher"

What an absolute c*nt.

Interesting that the poor dear cannot be named but it's perfectly fine to drag these 4 lads' names through the dirt.

[Digby]

Latest bit of news is that PJs lawyers have issued proceedings against labour senator Aodhan Riordan for tweets he published and then deleted.
Another report says its a pre action libel correspondence which is thought to mean retract that statement or we will sue

The tweet said

"I want the woman at the centre of the Belfast rape case to know that she has been incredibly courageous and that I,and thousands of others, believe her.
The smug well-connected middle class boys win out again #Ibelieveher"

What an absolute c*nt.

Interesting that the poor dear cannot be named but it's perfectly fine to drag these 4 lads' names through the dirt.

It's not fine to drag names through the dirt, it's just on balance it's imo the way it has to be. And in this instance the 4 deserve some ridicule

[hugh_woatmeigh]

Latest bit of news is that PJs lawyers have issued proceedings against labour senator Aodhan Riordan for tweets he published and then deleted.
Another report says its a pre action libel correspondence which is thought to mean retract that statement or we will sue

The tweet said

"I want the woman at the centre of the Belfast rape case to know that she has been incredibly courageous and that I,and thousands of others, believe her.
The smug well-connected middle class boys win out again #Ibelieveher"

What an absolute c*nt.

Interesting that the poor dear cannot be named but it's perfectly fine to drag these 4 lads' names through the dirt.

It's not fine to drag names through the dirt, it's just on balance it's imo the way it has to be. And in this instance the 4 deserve some ridicule

Honestly it just reads like the bird regretted what she did instantly. Potentially had a bit of a melt down, turned to the police and it all got out of hand from that point on.

These liberal #ibelieveher c*nts coming out the woodwork are insufferable. The woman's version of events do not seem to be consistent - which version do they believe, I wonder...

Just because the lads are scumbags doesn't justify this whole circus.

[Digby]

What an absolute c*nt.

Interesting that the poor dear cannot be named but it's perfectly fine to drag these 4 lads' names through the dirt.

It's not fine to drag names through the dirt, it's just on balance it's imo the way it has to be. And in this instance the 4 deserve some ridicule

Honestly it just reads like the bird regretted what she did instantly. Potentially had a bit of a melt down, turned to the police and it all got out of hand from that point on.

These liberal #ibelieveher c*nts coming out the woodwork are insufferable. The woman's version of events do not seem to be consistent - which version do they believe, I wonder...

Just because the lads are scumbags doesn't justify this whole circus.

I've honestly no idea how one would read such into the actions of the complainant, that might be the case but it's hardly the only thing one could read into into, which makes reading anything into a pointless task.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

H_W, you are bandying language about here that might sit more comfortably on your apparently socially retarded shoulders than in does on anyone involved in this miserable case.

Do you somehow feel that any sense of wrong is out of place or that it is right to believe that any little ‘scrubber’ is fair game if she has had a couple of sips of Chardonnay and gets a bit star-struck by a smear of celebrity or the trappings of old money?

Do you, perhaps, believe that it is not enough that these men have been treated in accordance with their legal rights, but that the girl’s should now be overturned in the pursuit of petty vengeance; or that the legal rights of the rest of the country to exercise free speech and peaceful protest should be curtailed?

I am surprised but delighted that the debate in here is good and has encompassed all view points; it has been measured and respectful but is your carpet c-bombing of the thread really necessary?

[Peat]

I am surprised but delighted that the debate in here is good and has encompassed all view points; it has been measured and respectful but is your carpet c-bombing of the thread really necessary?

Not sure I'd call that bit too respectful tbh!

fair enough, I think thats more than a little harsh in the circumstances but I respect your right to disagree

The one role they might have left in rugby which makes any sort of sense to me is speaking to young players on the dangers in getting carried away when forging a career in an environment where you're subject to such criticism and praise. As to playing again, pulling on a club shirt or worse a national one, keeping sponsors interested in the game, not having teammates wondering how the feck they're being expected to play for and with them, the reaction of fans, the ease with with media discussion on a game they'd feature in can get dragged away from the rugby, I just don't see a role for them.

I get all that in a practical sense, but its an oddity that you can be rehabilitated from actually being convicted of a crime and in a lot of cases go back to your previous profession, yet be ostracised after being acquitted of this.

Rehabilitation requires a sense of penance. I'm not sure what sort of penance the IRFU can impose that would satisfy the anger of those who believe they've greatly let down the standards that should be set by an international player, nevermind those who believe it to be a miscarriage of justice.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

I am surprised but delighted that the debate in here is good and has encompassed all view points; it has been measured and respectful but is your carpet c-bombing of the thread really necessary?

Not sure I'd call that bit too respectful tbh!

TBH, Peat, it was a damned sight more respectful than the first draft.

[Banquo]

I am surprised but delighted that the debate in here is good and has encompassed all view points; it has been measured and respectful but is your carpet c-bombing of the thread really necessary?

Not sure I'd call that bit too respectful tbh!

The one role they might have left in rugby which makes any sort of sense to me is speaking to young players on the dangers in getting carried away when forging a career in an environment where you're subject to such criticism and praise. As to playing again, pulling on a club shirt or worse a national one, keeping sponsors interested in the game, not having teammates wondering how the feck they're being expected to play for and with them, the reaction of fans, the ease with with media discussion on a game they'd feature in can get dragged away from the rugby, I just don't see a role for them.

I get all that in a practical sense, but its an oddity that you can be rehabilitated from actually being convicted of a crime and in a lot of cases go back to your previous profession, yet be ostracised after being acquitted of this.

Rehabilitation requires a sense of penance. I'm not sure what sort of penance the IRFU can impose that would satisfy the anger of those who believe they've greatly let down the standards that should be set by an international player, nevermind those who believe it to be a miscarriage of justice.

So in other words, there is no way back from this to what was 'their normal life'; that was my point really.

[hugh_woatmeigh]

H_W, you are bandying language about here that might sit more comfortably on your apparently socially retarded shoulders than in does on anyone involved in this miserable case.

Do you somehow feel that any sense of wrong is out of place or that it is right to believe that any little ‘scrubber’ is fair game if she has had a couple of sips of Chardonnay and gets a bit star-struck by a smear of celebrity or the trappings of old money?

Do you, perhaps, believe that it is not enough that these men have been treated in accordance with their legal rights, but that the girl’s should now be overturned in the pursuit of petty vengeance; or that the legal rights of the rest of the country to exercise free speech and peaceful protest should be curtailed?

I am surprised but delighted that the debate in here is good and has encompassed all view points; it has been measured and respectful but is your carpet c-bombing of the thread really necessary?

Don't get the wrong end of the stick because I think a false rape complainant (or at least those that escalated the claim all the way to court) should answer for this.

I agree that Olding and Jackson are scumbags. No argument from me. But the police clearly should have been far more thorough and objective when questioning the bird.

[Peat]

I am surprised but delighted that the debate in here is good and has encompassed all view points; it has been measured and respectful but is your carpet c-bombing of the thread really necessary?

Not sure I'd call that bit too respectful tbh!

TBH, Peat, it was a damned sight more respectful than the first draft.

I meant the c-bombing, not your words. Unless you've hacked into H_W's computer and found his first drafts...

So in other words, there is no way back from this to what was 'their normal life'; that was my point really.

Mebbe. For all we know, the IRFU say they've suffered enough with a year's suspension, they're back in Ulster's colours next year, and a couple of years later, it's just a jibe that bubbles up every now and again.

But quite possibly, aye, there's no way back. But then, they chose lives as minor celebrities, with the added societal expectations that come as a result.

[Mikey Brown]

I’m not entirely sure how appropriate this is, and to not directly relevant to this case, but this whole thing has brought about a lot of discussion and this moment from a guy who defends men in this situation kind of struck me.

[Mellsblue]

Blimey, this was a difficult read.
My two pence worth, having read virtually nothing other than this thread, is that being acquitted of a crime doesn't mean you are not guilty of acting like an arsehole but, on the other hand, I believe strongly that, whether found innocent or guilty, the accused has the right to redeem themselves through education and prove they've changed through their actions.
I hope that the IRFU and Ulster investigation provides for a sensible ban based on stringent educational and community work requirements on the players. That those involved realise they can't behave like that, that the players return to playing the game and spend the rest of their lives educating young sportsmen that money and adulation doesn't give you the right to act as you please.

[Banquo]

Not sure I'd call that bit too respectful tbh!

TBH, Peat, it was a damned sight more respectful than the first draft.

I meant the c-bombing, not your words. Unless you've hacked into H_W's computer and found his first drafts...

So in other words, there is no way back from this to what was 'their normal life'; that was my point really.

Mebbe. For all we know, the IRFU say they've suffered enough with a year's suspension, they're back in Ulster's colours next year, and a couple of years later, it's just a jibe that bubbles up every now and again.

But quite possibly, aye, there's no way back. But then, they chose lives as minor celebrities, with the added societal expectations that come as a result.

Not making a judgement, just how it is.

[Which Tyler]

I’m not entirely sure how appropriate this is, and to not directly relevant to this case, but this whole thing has brought about a lot of discussion and this moment from a guy who defends men in this situation kind of struck me.

That's pretty powerful.

I also feel that this thread highlights that there is a huge difference between being found "not guilty" and being "innocent of all charges". One of those means that there is not enough evidence to convict - which is righty a very high bar to clear. The other means that you didn't do what you were accused of. The government has to act like those 2 are interchangeable. I don't; I'm just not allowed to discriminate against someone based on that.

For this case specificalyl, all I have to go by is this thread - largely because I care very much about the crime, and not at all about the people involved, so I don't want to distress myself by reading up about it purely for the sake of forming an opinion on this case specifically. I'm also unlikely to ever be put in a situation where I could discriinate against either player - or if so, then it's likely to be far enough into the future that I'll have forgotten all about this case.

[Which Tyler]

I’m not entirely sure how appropriate this is, and to not directly relevant to this case, but this whole thing has brought about a lot of discussion and this moment from a guy who defends men in this situation kind of struck me.

That's pretty powerful.

I also feel that this thread highlights that there is a huge difference between being found "not guilty" and being "innocent of all charges". One of those means that there is not enough evidence to convict - which is righty a very high bar to clear. The other means that you didn't do what you were accused of. The government has to act like those 2 are interchangeable. I don't; I'm just not allowed to discriminate against someone based on that.

For this case specificalyl, all I have to go by is this thread - largely because I care very much about the crime, and not at all about the people involved, so I don't want to distress myself by reading up about it purely for the sake of forming an opinion on this case specifically. I'm also unlikely to ever be put in a situation where I could discriminate against either player; even if I were convinced that they were wrongly acquitted.

As for one specific poster on here - making the assumption that any and every unproven accusation of rape is by definition malicious, and that the accuser sohuld automatically be stripped of her legal rights is just so utterly wrong headed it just makes you a hateful person. Fortunately I AM allwoed to discriminate against someone for being a hateful person.

[hugh_woatmeigh]

As for one specific poster on here - making the assumption that any and every unproven accusation of rape is by definition malicious, and that the accuser sohuld automatically be stripped of her legal rights is just so utterly wrong headed it just makes you a hateful person. Fortunately I AM allwoed to discriminate against someone for being a hateful person.

You weren't joking when you said you haven't read into this.

Not any and every. Just the ones who change their version of events. Just the ones whose pals have walked in on the act and agreed it looked totally consensual and have said so in court.

I don't pretend to have all the facts but the events and accounts presented in the media make it pretty clear that this was consensual. If something else comes to light then I'll re-evaluate.

Morons like this are just as bad as the fake news peddlers.



Jackson and Olding broke no laws depsite being scumbags. Some people seem to have a real hard time accepting that and distinguishing between the two.

RE Mike Brown's video. The same defence barrister will have also had to defend innocent people against false rape claims. Having read a fair amount into this I am of the thinking that Jackson and Olding are two of these innocent people. A court of law has adjudged the same thing. There's nothing to discuss here really. There is no perceived injustice.

[Spiffy]

According to today's Irish Independent, there is growing pressure on the IRFU, by an on line petition (50,000 signatures so far), and by direct communication by individuals to the IRFU/Ulster, to cancel the contracts of these two players for bringing the game into disrepute.
If this court of public opinion takes hold (like it or not, and I don't like the philosophy of it at all), the Unions may find it hard to resist, and the players could well lose out.
A difficult one to call without knowing all the terms of the contracts and their interpretation, and the legal ramifications of cutting them loose.

[hugh_woatmeigh]

Apparently Paddy Jackson's defence has cost him and his family almost 500k.

I'm sure old Serj in this thread thinks he deserves that cause he had a bit of a boast about a consensual act with the lads in a whatsapp group though.

Most of the deep-dives seem to be pay-walled on irishnews but this is an interesting one.The story of Dara Florence, a pal of the complainant, just proves what a pointless circus this was.

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-new ... 09743.html

[hugh_woatmeigh]

According to today's Irish Independent, there is growing pressure on the IRFU, by an on line petition (50,000 signatures so far), and by direct communication by individuals to the IRFU/Ulster, to cancel the contracts of these two players for bringing the game into disrepute.
If this court of public opinion takes hold (like it or not, and I don't like the philosophy of it at all), the Unions may find it hard to resist, and the players could well lose out.
A difficult one to call without knowing all the terms of the contracts and their interpretation, and the legal ramifications of cutting them loose.

Apparently Ulsters review does not stop with Jackson and Olding. There are other Ulster players in the whatsapp group whose conduct is now in question.

[hugh_woatmeigh]

Short answer, if the above doesnt clue you in, go read some Irish news articles, you'll learn more and end up no more wiser than you were before

I did exactly this tonight - especially after Serj's comments. I would like to think that I am pretty open minded - I'm open minded to the possibility that I was perhaps being unreasonable, insensitive and quick to jump the gun about some of the facts in this case.

I've come to the conclusion that without a doubt it is the other way around. Quite a few of you in this thread need to read a bit more into this. I would suggest starting with Dara Florence's testimony.

https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news ... 01326.html

Your comment especially, BBD, about misogynistic boys getting away with rape is one of the more concerning things I have read on this thread. You cannot decide that something was non-consensual retrospectively. Every little detail down to the position that the three of them adopted points towards something quite clearly consensual.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Ok let's take this in stages.I read little about this case until after the verdict and even then what I have read is limited. I've avoided most of the bollocks on twitter. i am not called to the NI Bar and have never watched a case there that has involved a jury.

1. It's counsel, not council. A pet peeve.

2. Under 4 hours deliberation for a 42 day trial is extremely short, suggesting that this was not a close run thing. Fwiw the consensus at work on the very little we knew about this case was that none of us would have charged it, the test being whether a jury is more likely than not to convict. For most of us the key piece of evidence was the person who walked in and thought there was nowt untoward. bear in mind when considering the case the newspaper reports are always wrong and never report the contradictions in a complainant's evidence or any suggestion that the defence were making headway. I don't know at what level the decision was taken to prosecute but for a Prosecution Service they were onto a complete loser either way. Don't prosecute and there would always be a suspcicion that they had not done so because the suspects (well 2 of them) were famous. Prosecute, and you risk the condemnation that has come from some quarters that you were doing so on weak evidence and potentially only because they were famous.

3. Let's assume that PJ and SO were telling the truth and are accurate. If that's the case then:
a. The drunkenness is not an issue because they had finished their season and were off for at least a few weeks.
b. Everything that happened that night was entirely consensual and indeed largely at the young woman's instigation.
c. the context of the text messages is not so bad. There is no crimeAt worst it can be said that the messages taken as a whole are vulgar disrespectful and misogynist - though each person would be accountable only for their own messages, and from memory PJ says little and the worst offenders aren't the Ulster boys. It seems to me extremely unlikely that anyone (even me whose job it is to prosecute these cases) would be likely to lose their jobs over that done in their free time without expectation of publication. No barrister would be disbarred, no solicitor would be removed from the roll. A year's suspension would probably be considered a pretty harsh punishment.

3. Let's assume the worst possible set of facts consistent with a NG verdict by the jury: that would be that the young woman was not consenting but that they both did not unreasonably believe that she was.
a. It's important to note that their belief in consent was not only genuine, but not unreasonable. That they were hammered could not have been taken into consideration in the reasonableness of their belief.
b. the jury were not sure that the complainant was telling the truth. In this day and age (presumably even NI) juries convict if they think there's someone pleading not to have sex.
c. They would not only not be criminally culpable but it would be extremely difficult for the IRFU to suggest any moral blame for what occurred. In these enightened times there is nowt wrong with having a threesome between (apparently) consenting adults.
d. The text messages are marginally worse, but realistically not any more likely to land them in trouble.

4. There is absolutely zero chance of any review by the IRFU going behind the verdicts to decide whether "on the balance of probabilities" they raped her. There would be all sorts of violations of natural justice were they to attempt to do so, and short of convening a new trial which I'm guessing the complainant wouldn't be up for.

5. My guess would be that the IRFU would immediately have asked Joe if either figures in his plans. I'm assuming that Joe will be interested in both because injuries happen. They will then suggest to them that they might like to stand down for the rest of the season - Ulster are fucked anyway - but that the Union will express it as a ban for a season for bringing the Union into disrepute. They'll probably find some community thing for them to do as well, or a fine to be given to woman's rugby or something.

6. I'm not absolutely sure but i think that in NI you still get your legal costs back from central funds if you are acquitted. it's chnaged in England but I don't think it had effect in NI.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

Apparently Paddy Jackson's defence has cost him and his family almost 500k.

I'm sure old Serj in this thread thinks he deserves that cause he had a bit of a boast about a consensual act with the lads in a whatsapp group though.

Most of the deep-dives seem to be pay-walled on irishnews but this is an interesting one.The story of Dara Florence, a pal of the complainant, just proves what a pointless circus this was.

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-new ... 09743.html

'Old Serj' does not believe that Paddy Jackson deserves, what 'Young hugh_woatmeigh' is suggesting is a £0.5 million fine. 'Old Serj' thinks that Paddy Jackson made a decision to spend the money on the best defence lawyer that he could afford. He paid in full, that is to say there are no outstanding bills.

'Old Serj ' thinks that Paddy Jackson got his money's worth and his expensive lawyer delivered the verdict he sought.

'Old Serj' thinks it is interesting that Paddy Jackson's lawyer fought the case not only on the issue of consent (The only issue that could deliver a not guilty verdict on all charges), but also sought to contest the issue of penile penetration. Was this, 'Old Serj' wonders, just in case?

'Old Serj' knows, as he followed the case and the evidence, that Dara Florence was not a pal of the complainant. The complainant was, in fact, the only individual among the eight who returned to Paddy Jackson's flat who was not previously acquainted with at least one of the others.

'Old Serj' does believe that Paddy Jackson's behaviour is sufficient to warrant examination by his employers. "Old Serj' agrees with Paddy Jackson's expensive defence counsel that the criminal trial was not a court of morals, but suggests that the IRFU/Ulster branch examination can and might well be, since the public expectation of the requisite moral standard of an employee representing those organisations appears to be somewhat higher than that of the lad (Rightly so in 'Old Serj's view).

'Old Serj' also believes that Eugene is a bollocks for sitting on the fence so long that he allowed this debate to simmer when he had it in his expert hands to shut every one up. 'Old Serj' is glad to see him and Peat back on here; so too are 'even older Spiffy,' 'venerable BBD' and the 'frankly decrepit McShinner'.

[BBD]

Old Serg is a grumpy bastard in the morning
His bag must need emptying


Nice to see you Eugene

It’s interesting to see that there’s a new hashtag trending on twitter #sosuemepaddy followed by some slander based on a belief that he/his lawyers cant sue everyone

[Mellsblue]

Apparently Paddy Jackson's defence has cost him and his family almost 500k.

I'm sure old Serj in this thread thinks he deserves that cause he had a bit of a boast about a consensual act with the lads in a whatsapp group though.

Most of the deep-dives seem to be pay-walled on irishnews but this is an interesting one.The story of Dara Florence, a pal of the complainant, just proves what a pointless circus this was.

https://www.independent.ie/breaking-new ... 09743.html

'Old Serj' does not believe that Paddy Jackson deserves, what 'Young hugh_woatmeigh' is suggesting is a £0.5 million fine. 'Old Serj' thinks that Paddy Jackson made a decision to spend the money on the best defence lawyer that he could afford. He paid in full, that is to say there are no outstanding bills.

'Old Serj ' thinks that Paddy Jackson got his money's worth and his expensive lawyer delivered the verdict he sought.

'Old Serj' thinks it is interesting that Paddy Jackson's lawyer fought the case not only on the issue of consent (The only issue that could deliver a not guilty verdict on all charges), but also sought to contest the issue of penile penetration. Was this, 'Old Serj' wonders, just in case?

'Old Serj' knows, as he followed the case and the evidence, that Dara Florence was not a pal of the complainant. The complainant was, in fact, the only individual among the eight who returned to Paddy Jackson's flat who was not previously acquainted with at least one of the others.

'Old Serj' does believe that Paddy Jackson's behaviour is sufficient to warrant examination by his employers. "Old Serj' agrees with Paddy Jackson's expensive defence counsel that the criminal trial was not a court of morals, but suggests that the IRFU/Ulster branch examination can and might well be, since the public expectation of the requisite moral standard of an employee representing those organisations appears to be somewhat higher than that of the lad (Rightly so in 'Old Serj's view).

'Old Serj' also believes that Eugene is a bollocks for sitting on the fence so long that he allowed this debate to simmer when he had it in his expert hands to shut every one up. 'Old Serj' is glad to see him and Peat back on here; so too are 'even older Spiffy,' 'venerable BBD' and the 'frankly decrepit McShinner'.

Please tell me ‘old serj’ isn’t Mrs Serj’s nickname for your penis. If it is, kudos on having a penis capable of cogent thought. It’s clearly more intelligent than Jackson’s penis. It also solves your question of what do now you’re retired. You will sell out theatres across the country.

[Mikey Brown]

I’m just baffled by anyone thinking the truth of this situation is blindingly obvious, whichever way it goes.