~ archived since 2018 ~

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

JohnKimble111

March 30, 2018

62 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Post Information

Title	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
Author	JohnKimble111
Upvotes	62
Comments	12
Date	March 30, 2018 5:17 AM UTC (8 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/8881ql/ulster_and_ireland_rugby_players_paddy_jackson/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/ulster-and-ireland-rugby-players-paddy-jackson-and.903581 https://theredarchive.com/post/903581

Comments

[–]boringcarpets 11 points12 points13 points 8 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Lethn 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]MasterDex 6 points7 points8 points 8 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]RogerSmithOnDrugs 4 points5 points6 points 8 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]AnotherDAM 3 points4 points5 points 8 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]RogerSmithOnDrugs 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

By your own admission you didn't examine "the evidence", only the cherry-picked narrative that was published by the media.

Since I didn't take time off work and manage to get a seat in the court's public gallery for forty two days, yes that is correct.

In a legal system that has demonstratively overreached with regards to "sex crimes" it would be fair to say that they are more likely to be innocent than not.

It really wouldn't. That's an overreach.

You CAN say that the UK's courts and investigators, under intense pressure to suppress evidence of innocence and find guilt

No evidence of this whatsoever.

But you didn't say that - you implied that you would be all for hanging these men even though clearly not enough evidence was provided to prove guilt.

I implied nothing of the sort; I merely pointed out that failure to determine them guilty with 99% confidence doesn't equate to them being 100% innocent, with the woman being a dirty lying slag.

[–]AnotherDAM 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Since I didn't take time off work and manage to get a seat in the court's public gallery for forty two days, yes that is correct.

And yet you feel entitled to say that you feel the evidence was strong. Based on what, your psychic powers?

It really wouldn't. That's an overreach.

You clearly don't understand legal standards. A "Not Guilty" verdict means more likely innocent than not, even if it is 50% plus a hair. You live in a world that believe men are guilty "but just got away with it". I live in a world where a court of law declared there was not sufficient evidence and so I must assume the accused was in fact innocent of the crimes alleged.

No evidence of this whatsoever.

You are either willfully blind and ignorant, or a really bad liar. You cannot visit this sub with any frequency, or be an informed adult in general, and not know about the collapse of MANY UK sexual assault cases because the police and prosecutors colluded to hide exculpatory evidence in the last six months. Which also throws years, perhaps decades, of cases into question.

I merely pointed out that failure to determine them guilty with 99% confidence doesn't equate to them being 100% innocent

And here we are at the crux of it. Our legal system (both the UK and America baring Louisiana) is based on the lessons of actual oppressed people (you know, generally poor men and women by generally wealthy men and women) and what it takes to come close to "fair". You live in a world where everyone but you must be perfect. Guilt isn't a moral standard, god, if he or she exists, can judge me on the totality of my life. Men cannot. Guilt, in a court of law, means the person did the crime AND there is evidence proving that the crime occurred because the alternative is the Salem Witch Trials and all of the shit that led up to the necessity of the Magna Carta.

with the woman being a dirty lying slag.

Your words, not mine. Maybe she was drunk and doesn't remember; maybe she has a boyfriend or husband and is unwilling to face those consequences, maybe she was raped. I don't know. I DO KNOW that a court of law says there is not enough evidence for anyone to call these men guilty. So maybe she has to carry this bit of injustice in a world that heaps injustice on everyone, or maybe she has to learn to take better care of herself, or maybe some other lesson. None of those things calls our legal system into question.

[–]Hotbbqwing 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]RogerSmithOnDrugs 2 points3 points4 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

And yet you feel entitled to say that you feel the evidence was strong. Based on what, your psychic powers?

I felt that the evidence I heard and read about was compelling, while acknowledging that since there was 42 days in the trial, I wasn't privy to the same level of detail as the jury.

You clearly don't understand legal standards. A "Not Guilty" verdict means more likely innocent than not, even if it is 50% plus a hair

This is absurdly false. You could believe it was 85% likely someone was guilty, but still find them "Not Guilty" as there is reasonable doubt.

You live in a world that believe men are guilty "but just got away with it". I live in a world where a court of law declared there was not sufficient evidence and so I must assume the accused was in fact innocent of the crimes alleged.

Nope. I believe there's a chance they're guilty, somewhere between 0-90%, but accept the decision of the jury. The Irish rugby authorities can do their own investigations and choose to take whatever action they feel is appropriate.

I also believe there is a chance the woman was lying, somewhere between 0-90%. I don't claim to somehow know she 100% was, just because 12 people didn't believe the men were 100% likely to be guilty.

Guilt, in a court of law, means the person did the crime AND there is evidence proving that the crime occurred because the alternative is the Salem Witch Trials and all of the shit that led up to the necessity of the Magna Carta

You seem to be reading thoughts from me that simply aren't there. I never criticised the legal system, or the verdict, merely your claim that because the jury weren't 100% sure in the men's guilt, it means the woman was 100% lying.

Your words, not mine.

You posted

Fuck her "victimhood". She destroyed the lives of 4 men because she didn't want to be slut-shamed for having group sex.

Not far off...

None of those things calls our legal system into question.

I never once said it did! Stop arguing with made up people!

[–]Lethn 0 points1 point2 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

The thing about these types of incidents is they are difficult, so I get your hesitation, I do. More often than not what happens is these types of women sleep with guys they know are massive douchebags and they end up regretting it after and go on a false accusation spree out of either embarrassment or revenge.

It doesn't matter whether it's Hollywood, fraternities or in this case successful rugby players. What feminists are proving is they hang out with rich and powerful men who they know are generally bad people and then they use that experience and take it out on the rest of us living in the normal world.

That is definitely a clear trend that I'm seeing, the woman involved here knew what these men were like, yet she had sex with them anyway. You can see it in the texts with her rants about their attitude.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points3 points 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Mickydub -1 points0 points1 point 8 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link