Jackson & Olding

[Digby]

Didn't they already take action against the BBC? Also what's the claim for, that they were named as prime suspects and the BBC didn't wait until they were formally charged? Would that have seen a delay of weeks or months in their names being made public?

Then were the BBC even the first outlet to report? I'd go out on a limb and suggest someone(s) wondering why they'd been dropped from an Ulster squad would have been the first to comment at which point you start to get into media reporting media, I'll be amazed if the Beeb were the first given they don't normally show a lot of interest in rugby.

[Banquo]

... which are a huge blot on the CPS ...

We don't have a CPS over here, Mucker. The Crown bit makes hot blooded types want to blow holes in our court houses. Our PSs are Public.

I was referring to the cases here, but good knowledge for me

[Banquo]

I think they are starting to, however I think they would win such a case no matter how unpalatable that will be to some people

I agree with Banquo that I don't think they do acknowledge how dismal their conduct has been, but I also agree with you, Dom, that they have a valid case against the BBC and the not guilty verdicts make it almost certain that they would win it.

Yet more of the licence fee down the tubes. At this rate they won't be able to afford another series of Call the Midwife!!!

To be pragmatic about it - I am sure they desperately need some cash to pay the lawyers' bills. But yes, it will still keep them in the public eye, where I don't think they want to be anymore.

aye, that was my thinking too.

[BBD]

It's great you're no longer innocent until proven guilty. Makes things much easier on the internet.

it'll make moderation a damned sight easier

[BBD]

Haven't seen this level of hot debate, moral outrage and ploarized opinion on RR since Gavin Henson got pissed on the Cardiff train several years ago.

It was an Away day Super Saver ticket and yew knows it! yfcy!

[BBD]

Haven't seen this level of hot debate, moral outrage and ploarized opinion on RR since Gavin Henson got pissed on the Cardiff train several years ago.

That's because you only ever visit the threads where everyone is in unanimous agreement that yer a wee ballix.

word!

[BBD]

Didn't they already take action against the BBC? Also what's the claim for, that they were named as prime suspects and the BBC didn't wait until they were formally charged? Would that have seen a delay of weeks or months in their names being made public?

Then were the BBC even the first outlet to report? I'd go out on a limb and suggest someone(s) wondering why they'd been dropped from an Ulster squad would have been the first to comment at which point you start to get into media reporting media, I'll be amazed if the Beeb were the first given they don't normally show a lot of interest in rugby.

This is from todays Irish Independent


"Ulster and Ireland rugby players Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding are to pursue a privacy lawsuit against the BBC following their acquittal at Belfast Crown Court.
The action, initiated in 2016, had been put on hold pending the outcome of the rape trial.
Following yesterday's verdict, a solicitor representing Mr Jackson confirmed the action would now go ahead.

The civil suit was filed after the identities of the two rugby players were reported prior to them being charged.

Both men issued writs against the BBC seeking damages for misuse of private information after details were published in an online news article on November 1, 2016, months before charges were brought against them.

The report named the two players and said they were two of three men questioned about alleged sex offences at a property in Belfast on June 28, 2016. It said they were arrested that June but details had just emerged.
The lawsuit alleges negligence, breach of statutory duty and nuisance.

In a statement at the time, Mr Jackson's solicitor said he and his client were both disappointed and concerned that the information had been "leaked to the press" before the investigation had concluded and well in advance of any final decision on a charge.

In their civil action, Mr Jackson and Mr Olding contend their arrests were a private matter and they were not given sufficient notice for a right of reply before the article appeared.

Lawyers for the two players also raised issues over how the information was obtained by the BBC.
The case was last before the Belfast High Court last October, when it was adjourned.

The civil proceedings had been the subject of reporting restrictions which prevented them being named, but this was lifted in June last year when the players confirmed they were no longer seeking anonymity.
Mr Jackson has also initiated a separate civil action against a freelance sports journalist and persons unknown in the Police Service of Northern Ireland.

But details of this case have yet to be outlined in court."
Irish Independent

[Digby]

Ah, it was pending. I'm struggling to see how much is at stake here given they were then charged

[Spiffy]

Ah, it was pending. I'm struggling to see how much is at stake here given they were then charged

I guess what's at stake is a potential financial award for damages (or whever the term is). They must be well skint by now from legal fees.
Where's our resident barrister in all this? Haven't seen a post from ER for several weeeks.

[hugh_woatmeigh]

What exactly are these feminists protesting in Ireland now?

The boys aren't guilty. Probably not the best soap box.

[BBD]

Difficult to be precise, as some of them are protesting about more than one thing and they have become conflated following this trial result

The repeal of 8th - the rights to an abortion
the rights to have an abortion if you are the victim of a rape
the legal systems dealing with accusations of rape - trial balance, fairness, anonymity all under question
the way Gards (police) deal with rape (alleged rape) victims
that this particular trial was an example of privileged misogynistic boys getting away with rape because of their celebrity status
the difference in protecting identities between RoI and Norn Iron for accused people

so there isnt one nice neat answer

Whether its a good example or not, on the back of #Metoo, the #Ibelieveher theme has captured the imagination of the public on the back of this trial.
Maybe at another time the Not Guilty verdict would have gotten far less attention, but the 9 weeks trial and all teh social media, print media and news outlet coverage created an image that makes a Not Guilty verdict harder to stomach for some people

As a further complication, whilst PJ and SO represented Ireland, you are still talking about a somewhat divided land, the trial was in Northern Ireland, some (not all) of the protesting is taking place in the Republic. Which in recent years has seen a major attempt to overthrow the power and influence that the Catholic Church has had over education, health and government for decades.


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

[hugh_woatmeigh]

that this particular trial was an example of privileged misogynistic boys getting away with rape because of their celebrity status

uhh.. do people actually think this happened?

[Digby]

Ah, it was pending. I'm struggling to see how much is at stake here given they were then charged

I guess what's at stake is a potential financial award for damages (or whever the term is). They must be well skint by now from legal fees.
Where's our resident barrister in all this? Haven't seen a post from ER for several weeeks.

Damages for what though? They'd have been named anyway so are they asking for damages for being named x weeks earlier than they could/should have been?

[BBD]

that this particular trial was an example of privileged misogynistic boys getting away with rape because of their celebrity status

uhh.. do people actually think this happened?

yes some do, although its a small number and seems to be more of the radical & extreme elements

its not easy to define as it rests in the evidence,
- there are some contradictions in the stories between the 4 lads
- theres also the evidence from phones that was wiped
- the 4 lads meeting in a cafe where they all left their mobile phones at home
- theres also the fact that in Ireland sorry (RoI) rugby is still seen as the sport of the invaders, played at public schools by wealthy boys with posh names and wealthy fathers so the rise of rugby as a sport where we are successful is surprisingly not always greeted with enthusiasm. (An example, in the last month Ive read posts about how our third ever GS in history was a minor competition because realistically there were only a couple of winners possible out of the 6 teams in it. The bitterness is slowly dying but it pervades in some. 800 hundred years of oppression and a nation that loves a good dirge about it at every fecking gathering of 3 or more of them.

so those inconsistencies are being picked up and spun to counter the Not guilty verdict.
Trust me, this isnt going to die a death quickly and with a murmur. The Not Guilty verdict is not being welcomed, the media and social media for the last few months have seen to that. The interesting contradiction to that is the absence of coverage in the UK media

[BBD]

Ah, it was pending. I'm struggling to see how much is at stake here given they were then charged

I guess what's at stake is a potential financial award for damages (or whever the term is). They must be well skint by now from legal fees.
Where's our resident barrister in all this? Haven't seen a post from ER for several weeeks.

Damages for what though? They'd have been named anyway so are they asking for damages for being named x weeks earlier than they could/should have been?

I think so, I can see it could be argued that the naming of the players as persons of interests made them into suspects and then placed extra pressure upon the police to ensure they pursued the case to court. Ive no idea if thats the argument being offered, but it would be my first port of call if I was asked to represent them as their legal team

[Digby]

I don't really want to defend the Beeb in this as they seem to be confusing public interest with things the public might find interesting, but I'm just struggling to see what the damages would be for. If they win any money it's only going to invite pressure they should hand the money over to the complainant or donate to charity if she wants nothing from them

[SerjeantWildgoose]

that this particular trial was an example of privileged misogynistic boys getting away with rape because of their celebrity status

uhh.. do people actually think this happened?

yes some do, although its a small number and seems to be more of the radical & extreme elements

its not easy to define as it rests in the evidence,
- there are some contradictions in the stories between the 4 lads
- theres also the evidence from phones that was wiped
- the 4 lads meeting in a cafe where they all left their mobile phones at home
- theres also the fact that in Ireland sorry (RoI) rugby is still seen as the sport of the invaders, played at public schools by wealthy boys with posh names and wealthy fathers so the rise of rugby as a sport where we are successful is surprisingly not always greeted with enthusiasm. (An example, in the last month Ive read posts about how our third ever GS in history was a minor competition because realistically there were only a couple of winners possible out of the 6 teams in it. The bitterness is slowly dying but it pervades in some. 800 hundred years of oppression and a nation that loves a good dirge about it at every fecking gathering of 3 or more of them.

so those inconsistencies are being picked up and spun to counter the Not guilty verdict.
Trust me, this isnt going to die a death quickly and with a murmur. The Not Guilty verdict is not being welcomed, the media and social media for the last few months have seen to that. The interesting contradiction to that is the absence of coverage in the UK media

I would pick up on some of the factors you have suggested as underlying the protests, BBD.

1st, taking a look at the small crowds protesting in Dublin, Cork and Limerick yesterday they did not look too much to me like radical or extreme elements. They looked like girls who should have been home studying for their leaving certs with a leavening of university students. Almost exclusively - at the very least predominantly - girls and young women.

There are many who feel that the victim (I chose their word) has been let down by a judicial system that can rest on inconsistencies in her evidence and ambiguities of others while ignoring the blood on the duvet, the repulsive post-incident gloating and the inconsistencies between evidence offered by the four accused despite their collusion after the event. This is the either the great flaw or the great strength, depending on your viewpoint, of a legal system that places the onus on the State to prove a criminal case 'beyond a reasonable doubt'.

I think that the view in Ireland (All of it) that Rugby is the sport of an invader is, if it persists at all, limited to a very small niche of bigots. The opening of Croke Park to the IRFU effectively isolated that element of the extremist nationalist community who believe(d) that the Gaelic revival should proceed to the exclusion of any shred of non-Gaelic culture. I have seen the cross over between rugby and GAA proceed at an enormous pace (Witness McShinner's disappointment at Monaghan's annual campaign to live down to its worst ambitions, Helov's unrequited desire for any shred of Limerick success in hurling or footie and me and Paddy11 consoling both while secretly not caring a toss as long as Tipp have a few good days out in Thurles).

I would agree that there are some parts of the country, notably Belfast and Dublin, where rugby is viewed as a game that is played by privileged, public-school or grammar school educated boys, while the rest of the state-educated 'scum' play soccer (And the same could be said of England or Scotland) or GAA. In the north, you can divide those who play rugby/soccer and those who play Gaelic games pretty cleanly down the sectarian divide, but Ulster Rugby has expended enormous energy and made enormous progress in breaking down that barrier at Ravenhill. In Galway, Cork and Limerick I suggest that Rugby has not been, and is not viewed as the sport of any form of elite. It is as bound to the entire community as GAA and which of these you play (If you don't play both) has more to do with the proximity to a club rather than where or by whom you were educated.

Having had the misfortune to spend more than a few afternoons and evenings at Ravenhill (A couple of them in an alarming state of sobriety), I would argue that the Ulster support is quite different from others I have encountered. Once you get over the fleg-waving Santa-booers, it always strikes me that the terraces in particular are crammed with a far higher preponderance of young girls and women than you would see at many other stadiums - certainly more than we could muster at Thomond Park on a wintry Friday evening. This, I suspect, is largely a consequence of the hype and support that is attached to the Schools Cup competition and the dominance in that competition over a number of years of the delightfully co-educational Methodist College Belfast; particularly a number of years which saw the emergence of hugely talented young Methody graduates like Paddy Jackson (They're not so quick to claim Sammy Wilson or Jamie Dornan!).

I think that much of the outrage and the understandable sympathy for the complainant stems from this group of young women and girls, their families, their friends and a conservative Ulster and Irish rugby support base that believes that the verdict, while legally defensible, has pitched in favour of two men (No one much cares about the other two) who have, by their own admission, behaved in such a disgraceful manner towards one of the more vulnerable members of their 'community'.

[paddy no 11]

The major evidence - the eye witness and doctors report went against the girl and the jury had no option but to find not guilty. The lads stories are inconsistent and leave room for plenty of doubt. I'd agree with sarge it's not a gaa v rugby thing there's plenty of doubts without having to head into that stuff. The matches tomorrow will be a relief

[SerjeantWildgoose]

The matches tomorrow will be a relief

Relief?!?! Have ye no soul? I am shitting breeze blocks!

[paddy no 11]

Can ye clarify a few things?

Was it made know what the doctors report said? No sign of rape or penetration or just inconclusive or What?

Was the eye witness asked what she saw I.e. just fellatio or penatrive sex?

Is it the lads position that only fellatio occured and that the spit roasting was a reference to fingering?

Think ye followed this closer than I did

[paddy no 11]

The matches tomorrow will be a relief

Relief?!?! Have ye no soul? I am shitting breeze blocks!

Ha low expectations here, think injuries have cooked our goose sadly

[SerjeantWildgoose]

So the medical officer who examined the girl at the rape centre testified that there was a vaginal tear and vaginal bruising consistent with blunt force trauma. There was, apparently, an extremely harrowing argument in court that the video of the vaginal examination should be shown to the court in order to prove the vaginal tear, but eventually the defence accepted the MO's testimony and it was not. The girl's blood was on her white jeans and underwear and also on PJ's duvet. The defence medical expert argued that the blood could have been menstrual and the MO agreed that this could not be ruled out and that it could not be certain that the blood on the clothing or the duvet was from the vaginal tear.

The eye witness only said that what she saw did not look like rape, it looked like a threesome. She said that PJ was stood behind the girl, whose head was in SO's lap (Or midriff, I can't remember).

That the jury found all of the accused not guilty on all charges is largely down to the doubts that the defence councils were able to establish in the matter of consent rather than any argument as to whether there had been digital or penile penetration on the part of PJ. I think that his defence council's attempts to suggest that he used his finger rather than his dick (a lesser offence) speaks a great deal.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

The matches tomorrow will be a relief

Relief?!?! Have ye no soul? I am shitting breeze blocks!

Ha low expectations here, think injuries have cooked our goose sadly

Yep. That we are sweating on the fitness of Zebo, Conway and Scannel and have lost the likes of Farrell, TOD and Cloetee puts us in quite a hard place. It is interesting that despite all of this, the bookies have us as very narrow favourites, though I suspect that this has more to do with the ever-optimistic punter than a realistic assessment of our chances.

Still, this is exactly what was said the day before Gloster and Sale came to town. We're due another miracle.

[paddy no 11]

So the medical officer who examined the girl at the rape centre testified that there was a vaginal tear and vaginal bruising consistent with blunt force trauma. There was, apparently, an extremely harrowing argument in court that the video of the vaginal examination should be shown to the court in order to prove the vaginal tear, but eventually the defence accepted the MO's testimony and it was not. The girl's blood was on her white jeans and underwear and also on PJ's duvet. The defence medical expert argued that the blood could have been menstrual and the MO agreed that this could not be ruled out and that it could not be certain that the blood on the clothing or the duvet was from the vaginal tear.

The eye witness only said that what she saw did not look like rape, it looked like a threesome. She said that PJ was stood behind the girl, whose head was in SO's lap (Or midriff, I can't remember).

That the jury found all of the accused not guilty on all charges is largely down to the doubts that the defence councils were able to establish in the matter of consent rather than any argument as to whether there had been digital or penile penetration on the part of PJ. I think that his defence council's attempts to suggest that he used his finger rather than his dick (a lesser offence) speaks a great deal.

Thanks

I don't see how the prosecution were able to make such a hulabaloo out of the report so. They made a big deal of the fact that she wasn't interviewed after the report was returned, when actually it supports her version of events more if anything

[BBD]

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"