PADDY JACKSON

Join in the craic, and support yer team here!

Moderators: The Fonz, Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 20271
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: PADDY JACKSON

Post by Dave » Sat May 11, 2019 4:02 pm

Russ wrote:His salary won't buy him a house in SW London

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk
What about Reading?
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?

TMHG
Initiate
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: PADDY JACKSON

Post by TMHG » Sat May 11, 2019 4:48 pm

Dave wrote:
TMHG wrote:
Dave wrote:
TMHG wrote:
twiglet wrote:I don't know how folk know where the feminazis are from but a few of the posters reckon a number of them are from the south. If so, why are they so bothered about Paddy and where he plays?
A few years ago Ismaheel Akinade was one of three who raped a 14 year old girl a number of times. He was eventually found GUILTY but continued to play football for Waterford in the league of Ireland. The feminine network were nowhere to be seen. Why? Would it be because of his colour, or maybe his religion or maybe because Ismaheel was not a rugby player?
Significant differences between the cases. First of all, they were all underage (Akinade was 16 at the time). In the ROI, details of a case will not be published unless the victim agrees to it (to protect the identity of the victim). Akinade was convicted of sexual abuse but did show remorse, unlike PJ who came out with all guns blazing! He did get a suspended sentence (presumably because of his age and the time it took to get to court (4 years).

As far as I can recall, a Dundalk United footballer was suspended for tweeting support for the lads when the court case ended and a Laois Gaelic Footballer was dropped for a final when doing something similar on twitter (despite being the leading points scorer in the league).
So Akinade is grand because he showed remorse for a sexual abuse conviction but somehow Paddy Jackson, convicted of NOTHING, gets your criticism.

This is mind bending logic.
No, Akinade isn't grand. But there is a difference in the cases and in PJ & Co. were adults. The reason presumably why the 'feminazis' were not jumping up and down about it is because all involved were children and the laws that apply in the ROI limits reporting of sexual assault cases and the public are excluded from attending the court cases.
Yes but you are still defending one and criticising the other. The main difference between the two cases is that in one case there was a conviction. In the other case there was an acquittal. Just let that sink in...
The main difference is that one was a child and the other was an adult. Children get treated differently to grownups.

Another difference is that one party had expensive QC's defending them while the other party admitted guilt.

TMHG
Initiate
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: PADDY JACKSON

Post by TMHG » Sat May 11, 2019 4:53 pm

justinr73 wrote:
TMHG wrote:
UlsterNo9 wrote:
TMHG wrote:
Significant differences between the cases. First of all, they were all underage (Akinade was 16 at the time). In the ROI, details of a case will not be published unless the victim agrees to it (to protect the identity of the victim). Akinade was convicted of sexual abuse but did show remorse, unlike PJ who came out with all guns blazing! He did get a suspended sentence (presumably because of his age and the time it took to get to court (4 years).

As far as I can recall, a Dundalk United footballer was suspended for tweeting support for the lads when the court case ended and a Laois Gaelic Footballer was dropped for a final when doing something similar on twitter (despite being the leading points scorer in the league).
The mind boggles.

Akinade = Convicted = Shows Remorse = Okay
Jackson = Not convicted = Shows no remorse = Not okay

So it's better to be guilty and show remorse than have committed no crime but not be remorseful for being acquitted :lol:

Good grief!
The problem is that they are just not role model material in their misogynistic attitude.
Who said sports stars needed to be role models anyway?

And what would be the point given that 99.5 % of us would have no chance of emulating them?

Most sports stars are poorly educated, perennial adolescents who have never done a real day’s work in their lives.

And that’s actually why we like/envy them.
Being role models comes with the territory. Don't tell me that players don't want sponsorship etc (such as flogging Adidas boots on twitter to their followers!)

Most rugby players come from middle class background and have 3rd level education. They are generally high achievers (because they need and will put the work in).

User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 20271
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: PADDY JACKSON

Post by Dave » Sat May 11, 2019 5:02 pm

TMHG wrote:
The main difference is that one was a child and the other was an adult. Children get treated differently to grownups.

Another difference is that one party had expensive QC's defending them while the other party admitted guilt.
No that isn't the main the difference. Paddy is innocent of all the unfounded charges laid against him. That's the bottom line. He should not be mentioned in the same breath as someone convicted of a serious sexual offence. You are still comparing a situation in which one party has admitted guilt with one who was acquitted on all charges. I have no idea as to what reason you have to push this nonsense.
Last edited by Dave on Sat May 11, 2019 5:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?

User avatar
Joe Schmo
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3744
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 10:13 am

Re: PADDY JACKSON

Post by Joe Schmo » Sat May 11, 2019 5:08 pm

TMHG wrote:
The main difference is that one was a child and the other was an adult. Children get treated differently to grownups.

Another difference is that one party had expensive QC's defending them while the other party admitted guilt.
I don’t understand, are you saying he was convicted because he was a child or the feminazis didn’t pick on him because he’s a child?

Are you saying PJ only got off because he had an expensive barrister and the wendyballer just admitted guilt because he couldn’t afford an expensive barrister ( as opposed to being a scummy wee rapist?)
Last edited by Joe Schmo on Sat May 11, 2019 5:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
big mervyn
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 11751
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 2:22 pm
Location: Overlooking the pitch (til they built the old new stand)

Re: PADDY JACKSON

Post by big mervyn » Sat May 11, 2019 5:17 pm

Joe Schmo wrote:
TMHG wrote:
The main difference is that one was a child and the other was an adult. Children get treated differently to grownups.

Another difference is that one party had expensive QC's defending them while the other party admitted guilt.
I don’t understand, are you saying he was convicted because he was a child or the feminazis didn’t pick on him because he’s a child?

Are you saying PJ only got off because he had an expensive barrister and the wendyballer just admitted guilt because he couldn’t afford an expensive barrister ( as opposed to the fact he was just a scummy wee rapist?)
Don't think the wendyballer was a rapist. I believe the girl was 16 and consented to sex. However the factr that she was under 18 meant he could be charged and convicted of sharing indecent images of a "child".
Volunteer at an animal sanctuary; it will fill you with joy , despair, but most of all love, unconditional love of the animals.
Big Neville Southall

User avatar
Joe Schmo
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3744
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 10:13 am

Re: PADDY JACKSON

Post by Joe Schmo » Sat May 11, 2019 5:20 pm

big mervyn wrote:
Joe Schmo wrote:
TMHG wrote:
The main difference is that one was a child and the other was an adult. Children get treated differently to grownups.

Another difference is that one party had expensive QC's defending them while the other party admitted guilt.
I don’t understand, are you saying he was convicted because he was a child or the feminazis didn’t pick on him because he’s a child?

Are you saying PJ only got off because he had an expensive barrister and the wendyballer just admitted guilt because he couldn’t afford an expensive barrister ( as opposed to the fact he was just a scummy wee rapist?)
Don't think the wendyballer was a rapist. I believe the girl was 16 and consented to sex. However the factr that she was under 18 meant he could be charged and convicted of sharing indecent images of a "child".
No not him, was the convicted rapist from Wexford not a footballer?

User avatar
Jackie Brown
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 11226
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2005 1:15 pm
Location: Carrickfergus

Re: PADDY JACKSON

Post by Jackie Brown » Sat May 11, 2019 5:24 pm

I smell a troll

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Gonna Party Like It's 1999

User avatar
UlsterNo9
Lord Chancellor
Posts: 4143
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2012 10:02 pm

Re: PADDY JACKSON

Post by UlsterNo9 » Sat May 11, 2019 6:12 pm

Jackie Brown wrote:I smell a troll

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Of course it is.... location apparently Dublin, posting on an Ulster rugby fans forum, 7 minutes before Leinster play their biggest game of the season :lol:

Certainly no rugby fan.
BRING OUR BOYS HOME #BOBH
THROWN UNDER THE BUS AND EXILED 14/04/18

TMHG
Initiate
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: PADDY JACKSON

Post by TMHG » Sat May 11, 2019 8:20 pm

Joe Schmo wrote:
TMHG wrote:
The main difference is that one was a child and the other was an adult. Children get treated differently to grownups.

Another difference is that one party had expensive QC's defending them while the other party admitted guilt.
I don’t understand, are you saying he was convicted because he was a child or the feminazis didn’t pick on him because he’s a child?

Are you saying PJ only got off because he had an expensive barrister and the wendyballer just admitted guilt because he couldn’t afford an expensive barrister ( as opposed to being a scummy wee rapist?)
Because of the laws down here to do with privacy (and protection of the victim), the details are not published. Children are treated differently to adults. Like Merv says, I don't think he actually raped the girl, more that he was there when one of his friends raped her. Its not clear, but the charges against him and the others were not rape. There was also some comment from the woman involved who said that it had caused a lot of problems with her family who didn't approve of premarital sex which may imply that there was some level of consent from the girl who was only 14.

The better the barrister, the better the defence or are you saying that PJ decided to spend his father's pension on an unnecessary expensive barrister?

TMHG
Initiate
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: PADDY JACKSON

Post by TMHG » Sat May 11, 2019 8:33 pm

Found a reference to it which suggests that he didn't rape her.
Akinade, of Rinawade Vale, pleaded guilty to sexual assault and attempted defilement at Ojo’s home on March 15, 2010. He also pleaded guilty to attempted defilement on March 25, 2010 at the same premises.

The judge further noted that the three men will carry a sexual offence conviction with them, which may “cause them not to get employment, or to lose employment.”

She said this was punishment in itself and was likely to come back against them in many years to come.
Just a few facts on the case - he is from Leixlip, Kildare and at the time was playing for Bray Wandarers. While waiting for his case to come to court, he played for Waterford United and is now playing for Bohs.

TMHG
Initiate
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: PADDY JACKSON

Post by TMHG » Sat May 11, 2019 8:34 pm

UlsterNo9 wrote:
Jackie Brown wrote:I smell a troll

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk
Of course it is.... location apparently Dublin, posting on an Ulster rugby fans forum, 7 minutes before Leinster play their biggest game of the season :lol:

Certainly no rugby fan.
I'm not from Dublin and am not a Leinster supporter (though I did watch the Champs Cup).

User avatar
Joe Schmo
Chancellor to the King
Posts: 3744
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 10:13 am

Re: PADDY JACKSON

Post by Joe Schmo » Sat May 11, 2019 8:50 pm

TMHG wrote:
Joe Schmo wrote:
TMHG wrote:
The main difference is that one was a child and the other was an adult. Children get treated differently to grownups.

Another difference is that one party had expensive QC's defending them while the other party admitted guilt.
I don’t understand, are you saying he was convicted because he was a child or the feminazis didn’t pick on him because he’s a child?

Are you saying PJ only got off because he had an expensive barrister and the wendyballer just admitted guilt because he couldn’t afford an expensive barrister ( as opposed to being a scummy wee rapist?)
Because of the laws down here to do with privacy (and protection of the victim), the details are not published. Children are treated differently to adults. Like Merv says, I don't think he actually raped the girl, more that he was there when one of his friends raped her. Its not clear, but the charges against him and the others were not rape. There was also some comment from the woman involved who said that it had caused a lot of problems with her family who didn't approve of premarital sex which may imply that there was some level of consent from the girl who was only 14.

The better the barrister, the better the defence or are you saying that PJ decided to spend his father's pension on an unnecessary expensive barrister?
Merv is confusing it with the Cliftonville wendyballer. I don’t think it’s a good idea comparing PJs consensual sex with 16 year olds taking advantage of a 14 year old girl. No more comments from me on this.

User avatar
Dave
Rí­ na Cúige Uladh
Posts: 20271
Joined: Fri Apr 08, 2011 4:27 pm

Re: PADDY JACKSON

Post by Dave » Sat May 11, 2019 8:55 pm

TMHG wrote:
Joe Schmo wrote:
TMHG wrote:
The main difference is that one was a child and the other was an adult. Children get treated differently to grownups.

Another difference is that one party had expensive QC's defending them while the other party admitted guilt.
I don’t understand, are you saying he was convicted because he was a child or the feminazis didn’t pick on him because he’s a child?

Are you saying PJ only got off because he had an expensive barrister and the wendyballer just admitted guilt because he couldn’t afford an expensive barrister ( as opposed to being a scummy wee rapist?)
Because of the laws down here to do with privacy (and protection of the victim), the details are not published. Children are treated differently to adults. Like Merv says, I don't think he actually raped the girl, more that he was there when one of his friends raped her. Its not clear, but the charges against him and the others were not rape. There was also some comment from the woman involved who said that it had caused a lot of problems with her family who didn't approve of premarital sex which may imply that there was some level of consent from the girl who was only 14.

The better the barrister, the better the defence or are you saying that PJ decided to spend his father's pension on an unnecessary expensive barrister?
A fourteen year old girl is not considered as having the capacity to make an informed decision on sexual consent. Any suggestion from you or anyone of a 'level of consent' is completely wrong. A 16 year old is a different story.

I'm out too. This is becoming progressively weirder.
I have my own tv channel, what have you got?

TMHG
Initiate
Posts: 395
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 3:10 pm
Location: Dublin

Re: PADDY JACKSON

Post by TMHG » Sun May 12, 2019 10:50 am

Dave wrote:A fourteen year old girl is not considered as having the capacity to make an informed decision on sexual consent. Any suggestion from you or anyone of a 'level of consent' is completely wrong. A 16 year old is a different story.

I'm out too. This is becoming progressively weirder.
Not in the ROI - 17 is the legal age of consent (Its 16 in the UK).
Under Section 3 of the Criminal Law (Sex Offences) Act 2006 as amended by Section 5 of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) (Amendment) Act 2007 it is a criminal offence to engage or attempt to engage in a sexual act with a child under 17 years of age. It is not a defence to show that the child consented to the sexual act. However, the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2017 recognises the reality of under age, consensual, peer relationships through the introduction of a ‘proximity of age’ defence. Under this provision, a person charged with an offence of engaging in a sexual act with a person between the ages of 15 and 17 years can use consent as a defence if the person charged is younger or is less than two years older. They must not be in authority over the child or be intimidatory or exploitative.

The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required for any prosecution of a child under the age of 17 years for this offence. A girl under the age of 17 who has sexual intercourse may not be convicted of an offence on that ground alone.

It is an offence for a person in authority to engage or attempt to engage in a sexual act with a child under 18 years of age.

Post Reply