Paddy Jackson hired for London Irish Rugby.

[StrippingTheVelvet]

After a year with his tail between his legs, Paddy has now been hired by LIRFC. I have attached the list of their sponsors below if anyone has time to send an email or two asking them to put pressure on for the decision to be reconsidered. I'm very articulate, but if it makes it easier feel free to use my letter.

"Good afternoon

I was hoping you could clarify your position on whether Pump Technology expects a certain standard of behaviour from both the organisations they sponsor and those associated with them? I am disturbed to hear about the recent appointment of Paddy Jackson to LIRFC. As you financially support LIRFC one can only assume that you endorse their decisions.

Given the level of public prominence players have and that they are viewed as role models for our young men to aspire to, do you feel this appointment is appropriate and are you happy to be associated with and financially support this decision?

I would urge you to please discuss this with LIRFC in the same way as Ulster Rugby's sponsors did to ensure there was no negative impact on their businesses.

Kindest regards,"

He shouldn’t be given a platform anywhere that should have said.

I think if a young woman leaves the company of a man bleeding and distressed, then that man should never be held in any kind of esteem again.

Joan of quacks
... so why do you think you know better than the Jury who sat through all the evidence you have not seen in a trial, which took 10 weeks because accusations were made against four men.? All of which were unanimously rejected by the Jury.
And why are you so vehement and convinced ?

All of the information about the case is freely available to read. It seems the jury were directed by the judge to reach a not guilty verdict if they believed that the rugby players reasonably thought they had consent. So, they could only be found guilty if the rugby players KNEW they were rapists.

Now, you tell me, how do you proove that? How on earth do you proove that a man knows he is raping when he rapes? And all a defendant has to do is say "well, I thought she consented." And we believe so many rape myths - if she was dressed a certain way, if she was drunk, if she went back there, if her knickers had lace on...... Such an easy argument to use

Aaaaand ...... of COURSE rich, famous sports stars think every female on earth wants sex with them!!!! Who wouldn't, right??!!

Yes, they were found innocent. But A LOT of people believe that judge's instructions to the jury were unlawful at worst, misogynistic at best ......

They were not found innocent. They were found not guilty. There’s a significant difference.

Dear Rabbitwoman
Have you read the witness statements by Dara Florence, the sober witness who was in the room ? She did not see rape. She saw consensual threesome and she was actually asked if she wanted join in by Jackson?
I am surprised at your allegations about the woman Judge in this case.
So perhaps you need to re-read...?
Here's a summary of her advice to the Jury. It seems very balanced to me. ( The summary is written by Lesley-Anne McKeown, a woman by the way, who also writes for the BBC.) Where is your source for your conclusions?

www.newsletter.co.uk/news/paddy-jackson-and-stuart-olding-trial-jury-expected-to-start-deliberations-on-tuesday-1-8433195

UpbeatDolores

You’re basically saying you don’t believe the victim. Why don’t you believe her? Are you saying she’s lying? Don’t be coy. Tell us what you really think of the victim.

NotBadConsidering
Well, it's the Jury, who after 10 weeks of evidence etc ultimately didn't believe the Public Prosecution's numerous allegations when they saw the evidence against. The sober female witness in the room, was a key factor.
(I feel sorry for her. My suspicion, is that she was actually badly used and advised by the 'adults' around her - all of whom had their own professional and other reasons for proceeding. Reputation will be a factor.)

That’s not the question I asked. I didn’t ask whose opinion mattered (the jury’s) or what the witness thought she saw. The victim said she was raped. I asked whether you think she’s lying. Forget the jury. Do you think she’s lying?

I did read the witness statement. She was not in the room. She opened the door and saw a snapshot of what was happening.

"But why didn't the victim cry out, ask for help?"

The victim said she turned away at this point because she was humiliated and was frightened of being videod/ having her photo taken. Her testimony at this point seems highly believable.

NBC
Judge Smyth said: "A woman is entitled to say no and to decide what sexual activity she wants, how far she is prepared to go, and what she does not want to do."
The reliability of all witnesses must be established and it is for jurors to determine whether memory lapses are "genuine" or "simply a convenient excuse" to avoid having to explain behaviour."

What I know is that the Jurors' decisions were completely Unanimous in this case. WHY ? They heard evidence during the 10 weeks, which made them seriously doubt the truthfulness of the complainant's accusations that she was raped.

Rabbitwoman
I agree. The complainant was very concerned about being photographed, and said so this in court.
She did not want to be exposed on social media in a threesome.
Perhaps, if the Key Witness, had never entered the room and saw what was going on, this would not have become such an important motivation ?

Why have you dragged this thread up and started calling into question the complainant? Odd...

UpbeatDolores

You don’t know that the jurors had serious doubt. All you know is they could not come to the conclusion of guilty, as opposed to not guilty. You’re projecting your opinion of the victim onto the jury, an opinion you are too cowardly to express openly. You started a MN account, sought out this thread, and immediately started defending a disgusting person like Paddy Jackson. Well it won’t work. You won’t get away with calling the victim a liar. I’m glad you brought up this thread again because the more people see what sort of human being he is, the better.

It’s well known that if you are being violently raped by a group of men that you fear being killed by them too. These men were out of control. They had drunk obscene amounts alcohol that they had bragged about by text. They were big, strong, physically overpowering individuals violently abusing a much smaller weaker person.
In her situation I would have been scared for my life. To state that she was having a consensual threesome because she wasn’t fighting them off and screaming is disingenuous and heartless. It’s fair to imagine that she was trying to survive without incurring even more (and potentially lethal) violence from her attackers.

The criminal justice system is known to be compromised and unfair in how it deals with rapes. This case has actually caused a lot of debate about how the system needs to change. I’ll try and dig up the previous thread as there were some very good discussions on this and I believe some high profile barristers are also discussing this as they were also horrified at the injustice of this verdict.

The bottom line is that no man should be able to claim he thought he had consent to violently abuse and rape a woman. His actions should be looked at objectively. If you rip the inside of a woman’s vagina by penetrating her you’ve committed a crime. Same as if you cut someone across their face or smashed their leg open. You shouldn’t be able to get away with it with weasel words and say it’s ok because you thought she was asking for it.

Paddy Jackson admitted to the things he did. The young woman presented ample amounts of physical evidence. The men admitted to it by text. The evidence was all there.

He’s from a wealthy family who bought him a legal team who managed to twist the letter of the law. It doesn’t make the facts of what happened that night disappear.

No future employer should shy away from being aware of who he is. How any of them can think he’s a good fit for a public role is shocking.

I suspect Quentin that the person who's bumped this thread is in some way connected with the case or with Irish rugby.

Always worth reminding people that the standard of proof in criminal cases is "beyond reasonable doubt" not "balance of probabilities" as it is in civil cases. So jurors could be 90% sure a defendant committed a crime and yet still feel they ought to acquit.

The bar seems absurdly high in rape cases in particular where "beyond reasonable doubt" seems to be replaced with "barring a logical impossibility". There was that absurd case a few years ago where the defendant claimed he tripped and fell penis first into the vagina of his drunk-to-the-point-of-unconscious underage victim (whom he'd plied with alcohol) and was still acquitted.

When it comes to rape trials, juries will not merely believe "the dog ate my homework", they'll believe "alien space dogs from Alpha Centauri ate my homework."

Someone who has been found not guilty is not guilty. It's no one else's place to magically find him guilty (in the court of public opinion, maybe?)

Somebody who has been found not guilty is not innocent.

Somebody who has been found not guilty is not innocent

Yup

This thread had come to a natural end, its very strange behaviour to resuscitate it

Brilliant posts by joan and barbara though so actually bumping it may have been worth it

Thats true Quentin

My isn’t this a cosy corner.… some of magisterial writers here can join Johnson, in their imaginative disregard for facts, contempt for our legal system, and in ignoring the significance of Unanimous verdicts….!
(As for American ‘sisters’, can appreciate your dispair with the corruption of US legal system – the cosy Epstein ‘deal’ in 2008 ; the terrible plight of legal processes delaying desperate bereaved Sandy Hook parents who are trying to stop the despicable lies peddled by Alex Jones/Inforwars; and as to how on earth over 70% of black Americans in prison, are incarcerated without a jury trial etc.)
But, make a distinction, this was a N Ireland Jury trial, additionally one under huge public and media scrutiny, so the ‘law twisting’ sentence by JQuarks above, strikes me as pathetic and lazy.
As Margaret Attwood says, “if you are going to throw out ‘due process’ – what are you going to replace it with?”

Ah, lazily argued, twittery, agree-along, self-righteous prejudice, it seems.

I’ll repeat myself

This thread had come to a natural end, its very strange behaviour to resuscitate

Paddy jackson is probably just trying to keep his head down and not mention it

And you keep dragging it up

Weird

Yes, let’s keep this in the forefront of people’s minds. Paddy Jackson, who made a woman’s vagina bleed and bragged on WhatsApp but was found not guilty of rape, will be playing regularly for London Irish this season. Jackson, who made a woman’s vagina bleed and bragged on WhatsApp but was found not guilty of rape would be hopeful that people just forget about it, and assume that being found not guilty of rape is enough for people to believe him over the victim. But it’s not.

Let’s remember, every weekend that Jackson plays rugby for the rest of his career that he made a woman’s vagina bleed and bragged on WhatsApp but was somehow found not guilty of rape.

Thanks UpbeatDolores for pointing out how the legal system fails rape victims and keeping Paddy Jackson front and centre of that.