Ulster Rugby trial -continued

[ZibbidooZibbidooZibbidoo]

New thread.

It is hard to talk to people about this. My brother brought it up when he last phoned me (he still lives in NI) and his views on it were totally and utterly repugnant. He has a DD the same age as the complainant - but of course, she is not a "dirty hoor" and it wouldn't happen to her as "she knows what would happen if it did". Not sure when I'll feel like talking to him again.

This is in the wording of the petition and wholly misleading:

“If Ulster Rugby need to enforce to these players how behaviour in their private lives may affect their career as rugby players then this should be stated clearly to the players as a warning not to repeat such behaviour again as it will carry consequences for themselves and others such as what they have gone through. However, these players have not broken any sporting rules and therefore, need to be back playing in Ulster shirts as soon as possible.”

Ulster Rugby have not made their code of conduct public and so the two paragraphs are nonsense.

Please go to the petition and flag this.

www.change.org/p/ulster-rugby-get-paddy-jackson-and-stuart-olding-back-playing-for-ulster-rugby?recruiter=868538431&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=share_petition.nafta_share_post_interaction.control&utm_term=share_petition&utm_content=ex83%3Acontrol

How can you flag it on the petition?

That link has just infuriated me all over again, looking at the comments on it, by the way in which the hard of understanding conflate “not guilty” with “innocent”. There are so very many not very bright people around.

TheOnlyLivingBoyInNewCross

I've sent a complaint to ASA saying that they are not being factually accurate over this and the 'silent majority', I doubt it will get anywhere but well hey.

NotTaken a poster on the previous thread mentioned the concept of "reckless penetration" which could be an effective concept - I guarantee we'd see a significant increase in convictions if juries could give a lesser sentence.

If the decision is taken to lift reporting restrictions today, will we find out what was restricted immediately or will there be further appeals possible?

Scroll down to report a policy violation. You have to sign in, then select the violation and add your comments.

Have reported with this message.

The players are currently going through a disciplinary process, this should be completed before any decisions are made. The comments of the people signing are disgusting. They call for the name of a rape victim to be made public, include slurs about Muslims and claiming there is a witch hunt.

This must be really hurtful for the rape victim and is giving a voice to misogyny and making light of rape.

I’m really angry that the person who is pushing this petition is obviously hiding behind a fake name.

“John Smith” probably inspired by his favourite drink - what a pathetic little cliche.

I’ve reported the profile as fake and using a fake name etc - you can submit it to Facebook for review under different subheadings so PLEASE fill your boots and report him too. He’s spamming away about this, without even having the guts to own his repugnant views.

www.facebook.com/belfasttelegraph/posts/10156066077453819

His comment is on this link.

I signed the IRFU petition and have been hounded with abusive messages on facebook (some by PM) as a result. Insulting my looks, my intelligence, just generally everything about me.

It won't stop me, but bloody hell it is pissing me off that when women dare to say 'you know what, we deserve better than this' people get SO angry. And I think the most disappointing thing of all is that some of the most vicious abuse is from other women.

www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/belfast-rape-trial-the-legal-arguments-revealed-1.3458269

I cannot believe the things the jury were not allowed to hear. Can't believe it.

IT seems apparent where Bel Tel’s loyalties lie, doesn’t it.

Reported in the media ban being lifted but neglected reporting all the really distasteful information, which it is now permitted to share.

Ran a front page article about the advert on reinstating those two ... men.

Fucking he'll. Cannot believe the evidence about the semen was not allowed. Jesus.

Agree, *Quentin. And as for the bloodstains.

No problem that none of the accused's statements matched, that they had deleted texts, met up to discuss their "story", didn't have to explain the old bloodstains on the sheets , had time to wash their clothes afterwards, semen on the crotch of the girl's jeans not allowed to be mentioned but the complainant had to have perfect recall with no discrepancies whatsoever.

So much left unexplained.

who was running that case? Was it the judge or the defence counsel? FFS.

The Irish Independent's reporting of the pornographic video clips and their relevance to the fact that the four had discussed it the next day (which they denied) is, in my opinion, the most relevant.

It looks as though they sent the clip (which all four saw) and may have discussed it at lunch, which does make it seem (allegedly obviously , I don't want the link deleted) that they certainly had an opportunity to compare stories.

'...... had no intention of saying where this blood came from.'

Excuse my stupidity but ????

The old blood stains is more horrific than I had imagined - it makes me hope there's a hell waiting for them one day.

Maybe a nosebleed or something? Or maybe he had someone else in the bed the night before and they had suffered a “consensual” laceration in their vagina.

I would have expected the defence to say if it was his blood. Rugby players must get loads of bangs, so their blood on sheets wouldn't be a surprise.

Getting it removed from the evidence, though - that raises the question of whether it was someone else's blood.

Not to mention the fact that it's now legally allowed to airbrush evidence to be shown in a court of law. That's a whole other thread entirely

Has it ever been permissible to present doctored evidence in a court of law without it being made obvious to the jury? Can only think of redacted documents where it's clear that something is missing.

Agree Maryz. Can't believe photos used as evidence can be airbrushed!