Two Irish Rugby Players Who Were Accused Of Rape Have Been Sacked

Article here. Excerpt:

'Ulster and Ireland rugby players Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding have been sacked, a month after they were found not guilty of raping a student at a house party in Belfast in 2016.

The Irish Rugby Football Union and Ulster Rugby made the announcement in a statement on Saturday morning.

"Following a review, conducted in the aftermath of recent court proceedings, the Irish Rugby Football Union and Ulster Rugby have revoked the contracts of Patrick Jackson and Stuart Olding with immediate effect," it read.

The alleged victim, then 19, said she was raped by Jackson at his home and forced to perform a sex act on Olding.

The defence argued that the woman made false rape allegations because she regretted having group sex with the men and feared it may have been documented, and they were acquitted at Belfast crown court in March.

Two other men, friends of the Ulster stars, were also acquitted on separate charges, including exposure and perverting the course of justice.'

Like0 Dislike0


When a female accuses a male of any sexual misconduct. Or conduct. Any sexual anything.

I don't know all the details about this case. It's possible there was criminal liability with these two but Irish judicial practice may be such that technicalities resulted in a not guilty verdict. That's just speculation. I wasn't at the trial. Still, four men accused of crimes. All 4 found not guilty. The two main defendants were still fired.

Like0 Dislike0

Not guilty is a finding that there was insufficient evidence to convince a judge or jury of guilt, beyond reasonable doubt.
The SJWs of feminist ideology shout loudly that this does not prove innocence, just failure to convict.
But this ideological shrilling ignores a core principle of law and justice, INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY.
The premise of feminist ideology in any legal contest between men and women, is GUILTY, OR GOT AWAY WITH IT. That is, being male is a presumption of guilt, and innocence is just a failure of the judicial process, evidence of patriarchy.

The finding of not guilty in this case was based on facts and it was inconsistency in the accusers evidence compared to her independently observed behaviour that turned the case. Her consent appeared enthusiastic, and her withdrawal of consent appeared to post-date the events.

"Fact" is a term as yet not redefined by the feminist academia in its legal context. So a fact in law remains impartial and not influenced by ideology. Thus the outcry when facts are in conflict with the feminist need to accept unchallenged the statements of every female accuser, and convict every male accused.
There will without doubt, be a strong academic push, to redefine "fact", or redesign the hearing of facts in law, so as to increase the number of ideological convictions in rape/sexuall assault charges.
Hard to imagine how justice would work under a feminist paradigm. A bit like mob justice, or trial by social media.

Like1 Dislike0