Conor Mcgregor
Discussion
jules_s said:
TownIdiot said:
Civil trail not a criminal trial.
Yep - I would imagine (given the evidence) plod must be interested?Report said he was lodging an appeal.
vxr8mate said:
kevinon said:
I wish he was not Irish.
Sad that boys admire him for the same reasons they admire Andrew Tate.
I think Tate is soon to be released without charge. Some will say that makes him innocent of the charges against him.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at. If you’re release without charge, there are no charges to be innocent of.Sad that boys admire him for the same reasons they admire Andrew Tate.
I think Tate is soon to be released without charge. Some will say that makes him innocent of the charges against him.
Just to pick up a wider point here, not specifically relating to this case. Regardless of the defendant or the charge, is it not slightly baffling that if the authorities deem a case unfit for criminal court, a complainant can then go to a civil trial and have a jury reach a guilty verdict but on a lower burden of proof? All a bit ‘two tier’, surely? This is not a defence of McGregor, the article makes for grim reading, but he’s now been found ‘guilty’ of rape, by a jury in a court, but working to a different set of standards than a criminal trial would have needed, which was deemed unlikely to proceed by the authorities. Somehow that seems a bit dysfunctional?
And as if to illustrate the point, in the BBC article above the Irish justice minister firstly says:
"I just want to commend Nikita for her bravery, for her determination and the leadership that she has shown in what has been - I've no doubt - a very, very difficult time for her and indeed, for her family. Because of wonderful people like Nikita, I hope that it shows that there is light at the end of the tunnel, that there are supports available to people, and that there is justice at the end of the day."
Before, when asked why a proper trial wasn’t held, saying:
"We have a very independent system in this country, and I think that's right. Our DPP, she's independent in the decisions that are taken, and for good reasons that there should never be any political interference in that process.”
I’m a tad confused; minister says it was right that no criminal trial was held due to insufficient evidence or prospect of a conviction, but it’s good that a civil case jury then reach a ‘guilty’ verdict, albeit to lesser standard of scrutiny. That doesn’t sound like a system that works properly to me? Is McGregor now a rapist, or just a bloke who ‘got sued’? It leaves the whole thing in a rather bizarre position.
And as if to illustrate the point, in the BBC article above the Irish justice minister firstly says:
"I just want to commend Nikita for her bravery, for her determination and the leadership that she has shown in what has been - I've no doubt - a very, very difficult time for her and indeed, for her family. Because of wonderful people like Nikita, I hope that it shows that there is light at the end of the tunnel, that there are supports available to people, and that there is justice at the end of the day."
Before, when asked why a proper trial wasn’t held, saying:
"We have a very independent system in this country, and I think that's right. Our DPP, she's independent in the decisions that are taken, and for good reasons that there should never be any political interference in that process.”
I’m a tad confused; minister says it was right that no criminal trial was held due to insufficient evidence or prospect of a conviction, but it’s good that a civil case jury then reach a ‘guilty’ verdict, albeit to lesser standard of scrutiny. That doesn’t sound like a system that works properly to me? Is McGregor now a rapist, or just a bloke who ‘got sued’? It leaves the whole thing in a rather bizarre position.
Edited by Southerner on Tuesday 26th November 08:38
KungFuPanda said:
vxr8mate said:
kevinon said:
I wish he was not Irish.
Sad that boys admire him for the same reasons they admire Andrew Tate.
I think Tate is soon to be released without charge. Some will say that makes him innocent of the charges against him.
I don’t understand what you’re getting at. If you’re release without charge, there are no charges to be innocent of.Sad that boys admire him for the same reasons they admire Andrew Tate.
I think Tate is soon to be released without charge. Some will say that makes him innocent of the charges against him.
Southerner said:
Just to pick up a wider point here, not specifically relating to this case. Regardless of the defendant or the charge, is it not slightly baffling that if the authorities deem a case unfit for criminal court, a complainant can then go to a civil trial and have a jury reach a guilty verdict but on a lower burden of proof? All a bit ‘two tier’, surely? This is not a defence of McGregor, the article makes for grim reading, but he’s now been found ‘guilty’ of rape, by a jury in a court, but working to a different set of standards than a criminal trial would have needed, which was deemed unlikely to proceed by the authorities. Somehow that seems a bit dysfunctional?
And as if to illustrate the point, in the BBC article above the Irish justice minister firstly says:
"I just want to commend Nikita for her bravery, for her determination and the leadership that she has shown in what has been - I've no doubt - a very, very difficult time for her and indeed, for her family. Because of wonderful people like Nikita, I hope that it shows that there is light at the end of the tunnel, that there are supports available to people, and that there is justice at the end of the day."
Before, when asked why a proper trial wasn’t held, saying:
"We have a very independent system in this country, and I think that's right. Our DPP, she's independent in the decisions that are taken, and for good reasons that there should never be any political interference in that process.”
I’m a tad confused; minister says it was right that no criminal trial was held due to insufficient evidence or prospect of a conviction, but it’s good that a civil case jury then reach a ‘guilty’ verdict, albeit to lesser standard of scrutiny. That doesn’t sound like a system that works properly to me? Is McGregor now a rapist, or just a bloke who ‘got sued’? It leaves the whole thing in a rather bizarre position.
There are lots of matters that can be proven on the balance of probabilities (>50%) which cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt (approximately >98%). And as if to illustrate the point, in the BBC article above the Irish justice minister firstly says:
"I just want to commend Nikita for her bravery, for her determination and the leadership that she has shown in what has been - I've no doubt - a very, very difficult time for her and indeed, for her family. Because of wonderful people like Nikita, I hope that it shows that there is light at the end of the tunnel, that there are supports available to people, and that there is justice at the end of the day."
Before, when asked why a proper trial wasn’t held, saying:
"We have a very independent system in this country, and I think that's right. Our DPP, she's independent in the decisions that are taken, and for good reasons that there should never be any political interference in that process.”
I’m a tad confused; minister says it was right that no criminal trial was held due to insufficient evidence or prospect of a conviction, but it’s good that a civil case jury then reach a ‘guilty’ verdict, albeit to lesser standard of scrutiny. That doesn’t sound like a system that works properly to me? Is McGregor now a rapist, or just a bloke who ‘got sued’? It leaves the whole thing in a rather bizarre position.
This is one of those cases.
The lower threshold equals lesser consequences i.e. damages and not prison.
MrBogSmith said:
Southerner said:
Just to pick up a wider point here, not specifically relating to this case. Regardless of the defendant or the charge, is it not slightly baffling that if the authorities deem a case unfit for criminal court, a complainant can then go to a civil trial and have a jury reach a guilty verdict but on a lower burden of proof? All a bit ‘two tier’, surely? This is not a defence of McGregor, the article makes for grim reading, but he’s now been found ‘guilty’ of rape, by a jury in a court, but working to a different set of standards than a criminal trial would have needed, which was deemed unlikely to proceed by the authorities. Somehow that seems a bit dysfunctional?
And as if to illustrate the point, in the BBC article above the Irish justice minister firstly says:
"I just want to commend Nikita for her bravery, for her determination and the leadership that she has shown in what has been - I've no doubt - a very, very difficult time for her and indeed, for her family. Because of wonderful people like Nikita, I hope that it shows that there is light at the end of the tunnel, that there are supports available to people, and that there is justice at the end of the day."
Before, when asked why a proper trial wasn’t held, saying:
"We have a very independent system in this country, and I think that's right. Our DPP, she's independent in the decisions that are taken, and for good reasons that there should never be any political interference in that process.”
I’m a tad confused; minister says it was right that no criminal trial was held due to insufficient evidence or prospect of a conviction, but it’s good that a civil case jury then reach a ‘guilty’ verdict, albeit to lesser standard of scrutiny. That doesn’t sound like a system that works properly to me? Is McGregor now a rapist, or just a bloke who ‘got sued’? It leaves the whole thing in a rather bizarre position.
There are lots of matters that can be proven on the balance of probabilities (>50%) which cannot be proven beyond reasonable doubt (approximately >98%). And as if to illustrate the point, in the BBC article above the Irish justice minister firstly says:
"I just want to commend Nikita for her bravery, for her determination and the leadership that she has shown in what has been - I've no doubt - a very, very difficult time for her and indeed, for her family. Because of wonderful people like Nikita, I hope that it shows that there is light at the end of the tunnel, that there are supports available to people, and that there is justice at the end of the day."
Before, when asked why a proper trial wasn’t held, saying:
"We have a very independent system in this country, and I think that's right. Our DPP, she's independent in the decisions that are taken, and for good reasons that there should never be any political interference in that process.”
I’m a tad confused; minister says it was right that no criminal trial was held due to insufficient evidence or prospect of a conviction, but it’s good that a civil case jury then reach a ‘guilty’ verdict, albeit to lesser standard of scrutiny. That doesn’t sound like a system that works properly to me? Is McGregor now a rapist, or just a bloke who ‘got sued’? It leaves the whole thing in a rather bizarre position.
This is one of those cases.
The lower threshold equals lesser consequences i.e. damages and not prison.
EmailAddress said:
richhead said:
It does seem crazy to me, you cant be a little bit guilty, either you are or not, it should be the same distinction for civil or criminal.
That's not what the distinction means. It's related to the provability beyond reasonable doubt.
Of which there are many scenarios that fall below the threshold but which can still be passed judgement on.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff