Get It Off Your Chest


It gives a voice to cranks, lunatics and headbangers. And it’s dangerous. The fact that the leader of the free world uses it like a press release is horrifying.

And they were not acquitted. They were found not guilty. Which means they are not guilty.

I’m very curious as to how you think that you’re right but the eleven people who say through eight weeks of evidence before rendering a verdict are wrong.

That’s what I mean by the cancer of Twitter


A 3rd option of Not Proven should be looked at. They have this in the Scottish Legal System

Would be a way around double jeopardy. In cases where it’s not clear either way


Enough about Vincent’s lads on here.


Couldn’t agree more with that line.


The Laois idiot is wearing his intercounty jersey in his Twitter profile photograph. Laois is in his user name. His Twitter bio consists of a mere 2 words - Laois Footballer. Laois GAA have been dragged into this now, whether they want to or not.


Or this debate has been dragged into an association with Laois football?


At the end of the day nobody who wasn’t there knows what went on in that bedroom on the night. As such it’s the classic one word against the other case. Extremely hard to prove guilt in cases such as this and it’s not really a surprise they were found not guilty.

While they didn’t rape her, they treated her like a piece of meat, let her go home on her own crying, bruised and with internal bleeding. Then bragged about spit roasting and labelled her a slut and brasser…she was only 19 years of age!!

If that was a daughter of mine, there wouldn’t be a rape trial…there’d be a murder trial


There are 1 billion users on twitter, you are always going to get some headcases like you would discussing issues in a pub or right wing comment journalists in the times. , you need to be on it to see how it works. It can be quite informative and useful, I challenge you to sign up and use it daily fro a 3 month period and follow certain people.

Trump uses it as a affective political Tool, as do others, including our own Tory non elected leader of Ireland.

you just need to see the evidence presented alone, the storyline, the taxi man, the blood, the physical injuries, the text messages, the deleted text messages, the wiped phones, the lunch meeting the next day to get their story right, the money spent on their barristers in which a normal joe soap could not afford their legal teams, the 8 day interrogation of that [poor girl like she was on trial by 4 money hungry barristers and Despicably of all, the judges’ comments and instructions to the 8 men and 3 women jury.


That’s a good point above there, if they you believe they are not guilty, would you let your daughter or little sister go out with them or out partying with them etc.


What has that got to do with anything? Do you think that men are not capable of being impartial jurors?


No. In my opinion in such cases it should be 50/50.


Decision had to be Unanimous as well. If the jury didn’t/couldn’t reach a verdict there was the potential for a re-trial.


And I agree with this aswell.


It’s got nothing to do with Laois football in the wider sense, but the lad himself represents them in a very public way on his actual Twitter page. People are entitled to let Laois GAA know that they are pissed off about it. Maybe it would be a different story if he wasn’t wearing his Laois jersey in his profile picture.


Don’t think many of us would have thought this would be the case in terms of which gender is more likely to convict. Although the ratio was 8:3, I think a split jury should be a requirement for these kinds of cases. Interesting that the decision unanimous though.


Disagree sorry, where do you stop then, gender, religon, socio-economic group, ethnicity, age, type of driving licence held (for fatal car crashes), county, school/university etc etc

11/12 jurors drawn from society, regardless of age, gender, education, relative wealth should be trusted to come up with an informed decision based on the evidence not on their inherent bias. IMO of course


I wasn’t being serious.


I’d agree with taking a jury from the wider pool of society but inherent bias may be in some or all of the jurors depending on the case, the victim or the accused and decisions shouldn’t have to be unanimous. I don’t see how if 10 people think you are guilty and 2 don’t that you can be deemed not guilty? What is the procedure in the courts here for that kind of situation?


You’re clearly not biased anyway


Must of been influenced by the school I attended and teachers.

I could day the same about you.