RugbyRebels

hugh_woatmeigh wrote: what a nasty little bitch that bird must be. Hope the lads go on the attack.

??

H would be carving me up for my historic love of SO.

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:I mean sure their conduct leaves a lot to be desired but what a nasty little bitch that bird must be. Hope the lads go on the attack. That will hang over their heads forever despite the verdict. Jackson especially can expect a substantial loss of earnings as a result of this.

This is as repugnant a response to these circumstances as I think it is possible to imagine.

The 4 men in question have had their day in court and have been found not guilty of serious charges. That is fact and it is in the public domain and we are free to comment.

What is not nearly as clear is the exact state of mind of the complainant in the hours leading up to, but most importantly during those three hours between leaving the night club and getting into the taxi, when she was described by the bloke that took her home as "hysterical" (Generosity compels me to believe he meant it in the sense of being overwrought rather than his thinking it funny). She either set out at the very start to entrap PJ and SO or, more likely given her youth, found that events overtook her capacity to reason and she became involved in something that caused her almost immediate and compelling regret.

If there is evidence that it was the former, then that should be a matter for the PPS and it is no less vital that she be protected from trial by public media than PJ's lawyer has demanded.

If the latter case applies then PJ and SO will face a process in which the far less stringent standard of balance of probability will apply. While the need to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt may have led to acquittals, this does not mean that they have done nothing wrong. If the balance of probabilities indicate that either or both of these men took advantage of this girl then I would argue that they cannot be allowed to play rugby in Ireland again. Likewise should the IRFU determine that their behaviour has brought their province and the IRFU into disprepute, they should face such a lengthy ban from representing either that their careers in Ireland will be effectively over.

I have a 20 year old and a 22 year old son. If either had been daughters and I had been the sort of gimp that follows Ulster, I would be writing to Ulster and to the IRFU today and telling them that I will return my season ticket and demand a refund the moment either of these gentlemen runs out in either jersey.

Their conduct has been disgraceful and given Jackson's tweet last night - "Thank god! Celebrations tonight. Afters in mine for whoever dares lol" - they show little remorse.

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:I mean sure their conduct leaves a lot to be desired but what a nasty little bitch that bird must be. Hope the lads go on the attack. That will hang over their heads forever despite the verdict. Jackson especially can expect a substantial loss of earnings as a result of this.

This is as repugnant a response to these circumstances as I think it is possible to imagine.

The 4 men in question have had their day in court and have been found not guilty of serious charges. That is fact and it is in the public domain and we are free to comment.

What is not nearly as clear is the exact state of mind of the complainant in the hours leading up to, but most importantly during those three hours between leaving the night club and getting into the taxi, when she was described by the bloke that took her home as "hysterical" (Generosity compels me to believe he meant it in the sense of being overwrought rather than his thinking it funny). She either set out at the very start to entrap PJ and SO or, more likely given her youth, found that events overtook her capacity to reason and she became involved in something that caused her almost immediate and compelling regret.

If there is evidence that it was the former, then that should be a matter for the PPS and it is no less vital that she be protected from trial by public media than PJ's lawyer has demanded.

If the latter case applies then PJ and SO will face a process in which the far less stringent standard of balance of probability will apply. While the need to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt may have led to acquittals, this does not mean that they have done nothing wrong. If the balance of probabilities indicate that either or both of these men took advantage of this girl then I would argue that they cannot be allowed to play rugby in Ireland again. Likewise should the IRFU determine that their behaviour has brought their province and the IRFU into disprepute, they should face such a lengthy ban from representing either that their careers in Ireland will be effectively over.

I have a 20 year old and a 22 year old son. If either had been daughters and I had been the sort of gimp that follows Ulster, I would be writing to Ulster and to the IRFU today and telling them that I will return my season ticket and demand a refund the moment either of these gentlemen runs out in either jersey.

Their conduct has been disgraceful and given Jackson's tweet last night - "Thank god! Celebrations tonight. Afters in mine for whoever dares lol" - they show little remorse.

That Tweet is horrendous; if I were his employers now, I wouldn't be for much longer. At best their behaviour is pretty shabby, even if not guilty of a criminal offence.

That is an unbelievably stupid and crass thing to tweet. If that is the lesson he's taken away from this, I hope that the IRFU and Ulster do indeed cut the cord.

Shocking tweet - they won't be playing in Ireland again I'd imagine

Im fairly sure the tweet was from a fake account

Good

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:I mean sure their conduct leaves a lot to be desired but what a nasty little bitch that bird must be. Hope the lads go on the attack. That will hang over their heads forever despite the verdict. Jackson especially can expect a substantial loss of earnings as a result of this.

This is as repugnant a response to these circumstances as I think it is possible to imagine.

The 4 men in question have had their day in court and have been found not guilty of serious charges. That is fact and it is in the public domain and we are free to comment.

What is not nearly as clear is the exact state of mind of the complainant in the hours leading up to, but most importantly during those three hours between leaving the night club and getting into the taxi, when she was described by the bloke that took her home as "hysterical" (Generosity compels me to believe he meant it in the sense of being overwrought rather than his thinking it funny). She either set out at the very start to entrap PJ and SO or, more likely given her youth, found that events overtook her capacity to reason and she became involved in something that caused her almost immediate and compelling regret.

If there is evidence that it was the former, then that should be a matter for the PPS and it is no less vital that she be protected from trial by public media than PJ's lawyer has demanded.

If the latter case applies then PJ and SO will face a process in which the far less stringent standard of balance of probability will apply. While the need to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt may have led to acquittals, this does not mean that they have done nothing wrong. If the balance of probabilities indicate that either or both of these men took advantage of this girl then I would argue that they cannot be allowed to play rugby in Ireland again. Likewise should the IRFU determine that their behaviour has brought their province and the IRFU into disprepute, they should face such a lengthy ban from representing either that their careers in Ireland will be effectively over.

I have a 20 year old and a 22 year old son. If either had been daughters and I had been the sort of gimp that follows Ulster, I would be writing to Ulster and to the IRFU today and telling them that I will return my season ticket and demand a refund the moment either of these gentlemen runs out in either jersey.

Their conduct has been disgraceful and given Jackson's tweet last night - "Thank god! Celebrations tonight. Afters in mine for whoever dares lol" - they show little remorse.

Cannot be arsed to respond to all that and I'll most certainly be labelled a misogynist by the more liberal minded on this board. But at the end of the day the lads are not guilty and Jackson has born a significant financial cost to defend himself. She should pay every penny of that as an absolute bare minimum IMO. Lets not get emotional about it.

BBD wrote:Im fairly sure the tweet was from a fake account

Hmmm? I'm a social media Luddite so stand eager and willing to be corrected, but it came from @paddyjackson10 and that is his protected twitter account.

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:I mean sure their conduct leaves a lot to be desired but what a nasty little bitch that bird must be. Hope the lads go on the attack. That will hang over their heads forever despite the verdict. Jackson especially can expect a substantial loss of earnings as a result of this.

This is as repugnant a response to these circumstances as I think it is possible to imagine.

The 4 men in question have had their day in court and have been found not guilty of serious charges. That is fact and it is in the public domain and we are free to comment.

What is not nearly as clear is the exact state of mind of the complainant in the hours leading up to, but most importantly during those three hours between leaving the night club and getting into the taxi, when she was described by the bloke that took her home as "hysterical" (Generosity compels me to believe he meant it in the sense of being overwrought rather than his thinking it funny). She either set out at the very start to entrap PJ and SO or, more likely given her youth, found that events overtook her capacity to reason and she became involved in something that caused her almost immediate and compelling regret.

If there is evidence that it was the former, then that should be a matter for the PPS and it is no less vital that she be protected from trial by public media than PJ's lawyer has demanded.

If the latter case applies then PJ and SO will face a process in which the far less stringent standard of balance of probability will apply. While the need to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt may have led to acquittals, this does not mean that they have done nothing wrong. If the balance of probabilities indicate that either or both of these men took advantage of this girl then I would argue that they cannot be allowed to play rugby in Ireland again. Likewise should the IRFU determine that their behaviour has brought their province and the IRFU into disprepute, they should face such a lengthy ban from representing either that their careers in Ireland will be effectively over.

I have a 20 year old and a 22 year old son. If either had been daughters and I had been the sort of gimp that follows Ulster, I would be writing to Ulster and to the IRFU today and telling them that I will return my season ticket and demand a refund the moment either of these gentlemen runs out in either jersey.

Their conduct has been disgraceful and given Jackson's tweet last night - "Thank god! Celebrations tonight. Afters in mine for whoever dares lol" - they show little remorse.

Cannot be arsed to respond to all that and I'll most certainly be labelled a misogynist by the more liberal minded on this board. But at the end of the day the lads are not guilty and Jackson has born a significant financial cost to defend himself. She should pay every penny of that as an absolute bare minimum IMO. Lets not get emotional about it.

Misogynist would be a nice way of labelling you for that response. Also, a huge level of ignorance.

If he wanted someone else to pay when he was found innocent, he should have used state funded legal aid instead of private legal aid.

On top of that, she isn't responsible for this going to court… She just reported her side of things, and someone else made the decision to carry this forward - it's criminal not civil.

And any loss of earnings through rugby are someone else's decision too.

Some ignorant shit if you decide to have a drunken threesome with a 19 year old and it goes sour that's your decision and the outcomes are yours too.

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:I mean sure their conduct leaves a lot to be desired but what a nasty little bitch that bird must be. Hope the lads go on the attack. That will hang over their heads forever despite the verdict. Jackson especially can expect a substantial loss of earnings as a result of this.

This is as repugnant a response to these circumstances as I think it is possible to imagine.

The 4 men in question have had their day in court and have been found not guilty of serious charges. That is fact and it is in the public domain and we are free to comment.

What is not nearly as clear is the exact state of mind of the complainant in the hours leading up to, but most importantly during those three hours between leaving the night club and getting into the taxi, when she was described by the bloke that took her home as "hysterical" (Generosity compels me to believe he meant it in the sense of being overwrought rather than his thinking it funny). She either set out at the very start to entrap PJ and SO or, more likely given her youth, found that events overtook her capacity to reason and she became involved in something that caused her almost immediate and compelling regret.

If there is evidence that it was the former, then that should be a matter for the PPS and it is no less vital that she be protected from trial by public media than PJ's lawyer has demanded.

If the latter case applies then PJ and SO will face a process in which the far less stringent standard of balance of probability will apply. While the need to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt may have led to acquittals, this does not mean that they have done nothing wrong. If the balance of probabilities indicate that either or both of these men took advantage of this girl then I would argue that they cannot be allowed to play rugby in Ireland again. Likewise should the IRFU determine that their behaviour has brought their province and the IRFU into disprepute, they should face such a lengthy ban from representing either that their careers in Ireland will be effectively over.

I have a 20 year old and a 22 year old son. If either had been daughters and I had been the sort of gimp that follows Ulster, I would be writing to Ulster and to the IRFU today and telling them that I will return my season ticket and demand a refund the moment either of these gentlemen runs out in either jersey.

Their conduct has been disgraceful and given Jackson's tweet last night - "Thank god! Celebrations tonight. Afters in mine for whoever dares lol" - they show little remorse.

Cannot be arsed to respond to all that and I'll most certainly be labelled a misogynist by the more liberal minded on this board. But at the end of the day the lads are not guilty and Jackson has born a significant financial cost to defend himself. She should pay every penny of that as an absolute bare minimum IMO. Lets not get emotional about it.

Why should she?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

BBD wrote:Im fairly sure the tweet was from a fake account

Hmmm? I'm a social media Luddite so stand eager and willing to be corrected, but it came from @paddyjackson10 and that is his protected twitter account.

There's no lock on the tweet. It could be he made his account private after the screen shot was taken but my guess is it's fake.

Donny osmond wrote:

hugh_woatmeigh wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:
This is as repugnant a response to these circumstances as I think it is possible to imagine.

The 4 men in question have had their day in court and have been found not guilty of serious charges. That is fact and it is in the public domain and we are free to comment.

What is not nearly as clear is the exact state of mind of the complainant in the hours leading up to, but most importantly during those three hours between leaving the night club and getting into the taxi, when she was described by the bloke that took her home as "hysterical" (Generosity compels me to believe he meant it in the sense of being overwrought rather than his thinking it funny). She either set out at the very start to entrap PJ and SO or, more likely given her youth, found that events overtook her capacity to reason and she became involved in something that caused her almost immediate and compelling regret.

If there is evidence that it was the former, then that should be a matter for the PPS and it is no less vital that she be protected from trial by public media than PJ's lawyer has demanded.

If the latter case applies then PJ and SO will face a process in which the far less stringent standard of balance of probability will apply. While the need to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt may have led to acquittals, this does not mean that they have done nothing wrong. If the balance of probabilities indicate that either or both of these men took advantage of this girl then I would argue that they cannot be allowed to play rugby in Ireland again. Likewise should the IRFU determine that their behaviour has brought their province and the IRFU into disprepute, they should face such a lengthy ban from representing either that their careers in Ireland will be effectively over.

I have a 20 year old and a 22 year old son. If either had been daughters and I had been the sort of gimp that follows Ulster, I would be writing to Ulster and to the IRFU today and telling them that I will return my season ticket and demand a refund the moment either of these gentlemen runs out in either jersey.

Their conduct has been disgraceful and given Jackson's tweet last night - "Thank god! Celebrations tonight. Afters in mine for whoever dares lol" - they show little remorse.

Cannot be arsed to respond to all that and I'll most certainly be labelled a misogynist by the more liberal minded on this board. But at the end of the day the lads are not guilty and Jackson has born a significant financial cost to defend himself. She should pay every penny of that as an absolute bare minimum IMO. Lets not get emotional about it.

Why should she?

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

Why should Jackson have to pay out of pocket to defend himself against a false allegation of rape?

Too many people in this thread are confusing being a nasty little shite who doesn't have much respect for women at all and a rapist.

Have you read the messages? To me it just sounds like she woke up in the morning and had second thoughts about what she'd done the night prior.

I will admit I know nothing about the case, but in general terms if we're saying women should only report sexual abuse to the police if they know they will get a guilty conviction, that feels like a backward step. I think women should be encouraged to report abuse, not discouraged.

As someone else said, all she did was report it, it wasn't up to her to prosecute.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

OptimisticJock wrote:

SerjeantWildgoose wrote:

BBD wrote:Im fairly sure the tweet was from a fake account

Hmmm? I'm a social media Luddite so stand eager and willing to be corrected, but it came from @paddyjackson10 and that is his protected twitter account.

There's no lock on the tweet. It could be he made his account private after the screen shot was taken but my guess is it's fake.

Yep, I'm definitely a Luddite. That makes about as much sense to me as it would if you'd posted in Urdu.

If we take away that tweet, does it substantially alter the evidence presented by the several other texts, WhatsApp messages, telegrams, post-cards, scented letters and couriered parchments that passed between the four innocent gentlemen in the immediate aftermath of the sorry evening in question?

Having read SO's statement released by his solicitor in the immediate aftermath of the verdict, I am happy to accept that one of them has at least taken one small step back towards being a decent human being.

It's a tough one as to what they do next. On the one hand they can't be denied work for life, against which who'd want them now in a high profile role? I cannot see how they simply join back up with their club, if they do try they're going to hear plenty about it anytime they appear in public

I believe that the evidence that its a fake tweet is that there is no small picture of a padlock which makes it suspect is the translation

Not at all, it merely dampens down the fuel that were that tweet real would be on the fire of indignation.

Its worth noting that the music that PJ and SO now have to face will be down to the damage done by those misogynistic tweets and their behaviour on the day in question. From Ulsters perspective I can see them anxiously trying to make the right decision, given they are between a rock and a hard place.

PJ & SO have been found not guilty so theres an argument they should return to work
However their WhatsApp messages have created a shitstorm of negative publicity about their lack of respect for women, arrogance, excessive drinking etc which isnt a great look for a professional sportsman and certainly not what a sponsor would wish to associate their brand with. Their misogyny has made them pariahs to a large section of the community in both Norn Iron and the Republic. I hope it will blow over for them and they can regain some of the lost reputation they have caused themselves.

BBD wrote:Im fairly sure the tweet was from a fake account

Hope so. It does seem pretty outrageous.

Donny osmond wrote:I will admit I know nothing about the case, but in general terms if we're saying women should only report sexual abuse to the police if they know they will get a guilty conviction, that feels like a backward step. I think women should be encouraged to report abuse, not discouraged.

As someone else said, all she did was report it, it wasn't up to her to prosecute.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

agreed. The only slight concern would be the malicious cases of accusal, and even then the Police and CPS need to do their job properly.

Banquo wrote:

BBD wrote:Im fairly sure the tweet was from a fake account

Hope so. It does seem pretty outrageous.

I can't believe the media wouldn't be reporting on it were it genuine

It does, particularly in the light of the shitstorm on social media about the verdict

google #paddyjackson and you'll see the full spectrum. some real headbangers on both ends of the scale

BBD wrote: I hope it will blow over for them and they can regain some of the lost reputation they have caused themselves.

Whereas I hope they can't and they'll now lose any chance of the privilege that being a professional sportsperson brings.

Dont know if its been mentioned much but apparently SO & PJ are about to sue the BBC for an invasion of their privacy when they got mentioned as the prime suspects before the original investigation was complete