Ulster Rugby trial -continued

[ZibbidooZibbidooZibbidoo]

New thread.

[Hippomammy]

If the reporting restrictions are regarding another whats app group as is rumoured i wouldnt be at all surprised if their solicitors argue that they have been found not guilty so any whatsapp group messages not already in the public domain should remain private and i would expect the judge to agree with them. Hopefully not though.

[mikado1]

I did wonder if they'd got in touch with the woman they were with the following night or any staff from the cafe they met in next day. Though I may be over doing my inner Kalinda

[MrWriter]

I went to an all girls school in close proximity to Methody, I remember getting a half day on school cup day and encouraged to go to the rugby games, I didn't I sneaked off to smoke and drink!

I do however remember the entitled attitude of the rugby boys from all the schools, and how we avoided big groups of them whenever we were out, they were loud, boisterous and generally horrible.

[ElfrideSwancourt]

@WhyOhWine you have it right socially- v perceptive of you! Also rugby is the sport- much bigger than football- the boys at the NI grammar school I went to didn't even do football as a school sport - only rugby and hockey (cricket in the summer) but the 'real men ' played rugby.
Anyone who has serious money (very few when I lived there in 70s &80s) sent their children to boarding school in England.

[sashh]

Link to this is on twitter, one of the lawyers has stated lifting of reporting restrictions could "undermine the verdict of not guilty".

It will be argued on Monday

www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/full-reporting-of-ulster-rape-trial-could-undermine-the-verdict-36776307.html

[SonicVersusGynaephobia]

Hmm, sash that makes it sound like there is worse stuff to come out about the men.

There must be something the media deems 'big' as they seem to be pushing quite hard to get the restriction lifted.

[sashh]

Jesus Bumble

That's the thing that has been so clear, men in general seem to see rape as at worst a joke and at best a victory.

[ZibbidooZibbidooZibbidoo]

Do you know what I’m taking from that? someone stuck their head above the parapet and reported it. It was sent to a private social media account. Probably whatsapp. And someone in that conversation reported it. This is good. I’m not surprised that men up and down the country are taking the piss out of this story. I am surprised, and glad, that at least one of them said “this is wrong”.

[mikado1]

What are they hiding?? It has to come out somehow surely. I bet those men are raging that this didn't go away with their acquittal.

[NotTakenUsername]

Took me a minute to ‘get it’...

That’s a very telling little picture isn’t it. A room full of men and these two hilarious jokers putting on a show.

Let me guess - they were all in high spirits, got a bit carried away... it’s just ‘locker room banter’, it wasn’t hurting anyone...

Can someone tell me though, why exactly did they have printed name labels of two self proclaimed top shaggers to hand?

[Step]

Hold the horses...

So which part of this is news? Rugby has been a hot bed of misogyny forever, elitist Ulster schools? Class divide? Sectarian issues? Surely not.... not wee Norn Iron.

The trial is in some way a microcosm of so many of pressure pot issues of NI. The backlash is somehow heartening as people are at last speaking with a louder more coherent voice.

Bumblefuddle I'm not speechless re the link, it was just a matter of time. Sad but a matter of time.

[ZibbidooZibbidooZibbidoo]

Good point. It was obviously pre planned. So nothing to do with high spirits or getting caught up in the moment.

[BastardGingerCat]

Yes I spotted that NotTaken - it's amazing how much effort they've put into something that's "just a laugh" eh?

[eloisesparkle]

Why has Stuart Oldings QC said that ( and I quote the Irish Independent website including their italics )
the lifting of reporting restrictions could 'undermine the verdict of not guilty' ?

[PollyEthel]

Surely all the more reason for the reporting restrictions to be lifted, no?

[Twixes]

If the judge keeps the restrictions, could the complainant waive her anonymity and then reveal any additional evidence that was deemed inadmissible?

I know here in ROI abuse victims often do this so their abusers are then named and shamed. Probably not comparing like with like though.

[NotTakenUsername]

Sash do you mean as in offered a ‘payout’ to keep it out of court?

[sashh]

Well obviously it is just guessing and speculation. I can't think that it is anything else.

At the second Ched Evan's trial his girlfriend had offered a substantial amount to the hotel receptionist.

[NotTakenUsername]

Monday will be interesting. Anyone else bitter and spiteful enough to have enjoyed a wee wry smile at the idea of these smug barristers having to cut short holidays and change plans because of this?
I believe a member of the jury had to do similar after their antics overrun by so long. Sweet little taste of karma there.

[Twixes]

Yes NotTaken, lots of schadenfreude from me.

[BastardGingerCat]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the fact that they're legally not guilty means that this restricted evidence cannot be used to convict them and they cannot be found legally guilty off the back or sent to prison - right? So their freedom in the eyes of the law is assured. In that case should we not, as the public, be privy to information that may help inform our decisions about the defendants such as judging the relative threat to our safety if we're in the same VIP room as them.

If the information undermines our trust that the legal system came to the right conclusion then that the argument doesn't make sense. Either the information would unfairly prejudice the jury against the defendants and so concealing it ensured the right verdict was reached OR the information contains proof that the verdict was wrong and so should not have been kept hidden from the jury.

[rockshandy]

The comments on Facebook under that BBC article are really infuriating.

In fact, most of the comments on Facebook under any article relating to this case just highlight how ingrained misogyny is. Women and men alike are so apathetic that it heads towards malicious. So quick to dismiss it, to say "Is this still news?" or "What about (insert terrible subject here)?" As if people can't be annoyed or upset or campaign over more than one issue at a time.

I don't really understand how lifting reporting restrictions could undermine the verdict after it has been given. Surely even admitting that undermines the verdict.

[rockshandy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but surely the fact that they're legally not guilty means that this restricted evidence cannot be used to convict them and they cannot be found legally guilty off the back or sent to prison - right?

Double jeopardy in serious cases (including rape) was done away with in the UK inc NI. s75 Criminal Justice Act 2003.

There has to be sufficient evidence for that though, and AFAIK it has to be new evidence, so it depends what the restriction relates to. In theory, they could be re tried if there was some compelling evidence. But that is unlikely.