Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

joe40

BoatMad wrote: »

the argument is ( well by me anyway ) is its a form of hypocrisy , we punish in public what we tolerate in private tyoe of thing

I am arguing thats wrong, we either tolerate in both modes or we punish it in both

But if it is in private by definition we don't know about it. There may be rumour or hearsay but that is not enough.
My point which is not restricted to this issue is the argument put forward that since the conversation was private its contents have no meaning outside of those participants.
That is absurd. Once the conversation becomes public whether by witness, recording or whatever it is now public. Numerous scandals both at national level and even at family level have resulted from private conversation that have become publi.
In this case one be of the opinion the whatsapp messages aren't that bad, I disagree but accept that is your opinion.
However the fact they were originally private is irrelevant if they are damaging. (Obviously I mean in a reputational sense as opposed to any legal bearing)

jm08

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Owen Farrell had a poor six nations but suffers from the desire to play Ford at 10. Wasn't bad on the Lions was he?

Jackson isn't Sexton, Barrett or Farrell.

You can condescend all you like with your Joe Schmidt quotes and quips but they only serve to show you up for a lack of nuanced debating skill and class. If you're so sure of your superior knowledge why can't you behave like most posters here with a bit of decorum and state your point.

'I'll leave you at it'... the legend in his own head has left the building.

I think you are probably setting the bar too high with Sexton with regard to the drive to win and were always looking to do that extra hour practice. Think ROG and Johnny Wilkinson had a similar kind of drive. Jacko was spoon fed in Ulster with Ruan Pienaar probably taking a lot of the responsibility for game management. And of course he had no competition. Both ROG v Humphreys and Sexton v O'Gara fought hard to become first choice - I think they benefitted from it.

mfceiling

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Owen Farrell had a poor six nations but suffers from the desire to play Ford at 10. Wasn't bad on the Lions was he?

Jackson isn't Sexton, Barrett or Farrell.

You can condescend all you like with your Joe Schmidt quotes and quips but they only serve to show you up for a lack of nuanced debating skill and class. If you're so sure of your superior knowledge why can't you behave like most posters here with a bit of decorum and state your point.

'I'll leave you at it'... the legend in his own head has left the building.

What are you waffling about.

Where did I say I had superior knowledge? Very hard to "debate" with people who think Madigan should be picked ahead of Jackson, not to mention Carberry, Keatley, Hanrahan, Byrne or McPhillips.

If these guys are so good how come they couldn't shift Jackson up to last year?

My "point" being - do a bit of research on the current crop of fly halves plying their trade in Ireland and have a look at the pecking order.
We get that you don't rate Jackson as an international fly half but my point was that the coach of the current Grand Slam champions did/does and but for the court case PJ would have been a member of that team.

RuMan

NAGDEFI wrote: »

An ok international can be a very good club player, so he'll be in demand. I'm not talking about club.

Think the fact that this is now effectively a rugby forum is indication enough people have moved on!!

BoatMad

joe40 wrote: »

But if it is in private by definition we don't know about it. There may be rumour or hearsay but that is not enough.
My point which is not restricted to this issue is the argument put forward that since the conversation was private its contents have no meaning outside of those participants.
That is absurd. Once the conversation becomes public whether by witness, recording or whatever it is now public. Numerous scandals both at national level and even at family level have resulted from private conversation that have become publi.
In this case one be of the opinion the whatsapp messages aren't that bad, I disagree but accept that is your opinion.
The fact they were originally private is irrelevant if they are damaging. (Obviously I mean in a reputational sense as opposed to any legal bearing)

the point is that such trials , as they are in the Republic , should be held in-camera, the defendants were not on trial for the use of such language , nor did they release it into the public domain, nor did such language suggest any illegal , however distasteful the content might be

what has happened is the defendants were pronounced innocent of the charges and the media and certain vested interests are attempting to extract an alternative form of punishment

its not right

jm08

joe40 wrote: »

But if it is in private by definition we don't know about it. There may be rumour or hearsay but that is not enough.
My point which is not restricted to this issue is the argument put forward that since the conversation was private its contents have no meaning outside of those participants.
That is absurd. Once the conversation becomes public whether by witness, recording or whatever it is now public. Numerous scandals both at national level and even at family level have resulted from private conversation that have become publi.
In this case one be of the opinion the whatsapp messages aren't that bad, I disagree but accept that is your opinion.
However the fact they were originally private is irrelevant if they are damaging. (Obviously I mean in a reputational sense as opposed to any legal bearing)

I think people are putting too much emphasis on the language used in the texts as being a problem. The big problem is that we got an eyeful of their total lack of respect for women and for themselves.

BoatMad

jm08 wrote: »

I think people are putting too much emphasis on the language used in the texts as being a problem. The big problem is that we got an eyeful of their total lack of respect for women and for themselves.

goodness , walk down any street after closing time and you'll see plenty of that

or have you not overhead a bunch of lads with a few pints talking recently

if we adopted your moral code, we would be extracting apologies from half of the lads under 25 in the country ( sadly )

joe40

jm08 wrote: »

I think people are putting too much emphasis on the language used in the texts as being a problem. The big problem is that we got an eyeful of their total lack of respect for women and for themselves.

Absolutely, but the context and how the language used, displayed that

NAGDEFI

mfceiling wrote: »

What are you waffling about.

Where did I say I had superior knowledge? Very hard to "debate" with people who think Madigan should be picked ahead of Jackson, not to mention Carberry, Keatley, Hanrahan, Byrne or McPhillips.

If these guys are so good how come they couldn't shift Jackson up to last year?

My "point" being - do a bit of research on the current crop of fly halves plying their trade in Ireland and have a look at the pecking order.
We get that you don't rate Jackson as an international fly half but my point was that the coach of the current Grand Slam champions did/does and but for the court case PJ would have been a member of that team.

Never mentioned Hanrahan or Madigan. Also any great poster such as your self who makes a quip 'did you ever hear of Joe Schmidt' needs a little kick in the ar*e for being full of himself.

The Jackson you talk of was no. 2 to Carberry in Chicago. He's international standard but nothing special. We don't know what he'll be like now.

Your indicative of the type of know it all poster on the rugby forum who are full of not so subtle put downs when others make differing points.

Maybe you need a good night's sleep but don't start your little sarky put downs with me. As i said previously managers praise players after games for varying reasons. Didn't Schmidt praise Ian Keatley's play in Rome a year ago?Is that proof of him being an outstanding international outhalf?

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

I think people are putting too much emphasis on the language used in the texts as being a problem. The big problem is that we got an eyeful of their total lack of respect for women and for themselves.

Here's an example of how the public can forget and put aside a 'private' (intended only for those partaking in the conversation) racist comment.
All this was forgotten about and the perpetrator was allowed to continue his career and public life.

Double standards or just a well managed controversy by party HQ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/sep/15/world.race

jm08

BoatMad wrote: »

the point is that such trials , as they are in the Republic , should be held in-camera, the defendants were not on trial for the use of such language , nor did they release it into the public domain, nor did such language suggest any illegal , however distasteful the content might be

what has happened is the defendants were pronounced innocent of the charges and the media and certain vested interests are attempting to extract an alternative form of punishment

its not right

The genie is out of the bottle. A lot of people found their behaviour distasteful, even if it was consensual. I don't think anyone wants to punish them though.

NAGDEFI

jm08 wrote: »

I think you are probably setting the bar too high with Sexton with regard to the drive to win and were always looking to do that extra hour practice. Think ROG and Johnny Wilkinson had a similar kind of drive. Jacko was spoon fed in Ulster with Ruan Pienaar probably taking a lot of the responsibility for game management. And of course he had no competition. Both ROG v Humphreys and Sexton v O'Gara fought hard to become first choice - I think they benefitted from it.

I agree to a fair extent, but spoon fed never made a great player in any code.

BoatMad

jm08 wrote: »

The genie is out of the bottle. A lot of people found their behaviour distasteful, even if it was consensual. I don't think anyone wants to punish them though.

expecting or demanding an apology is a form of punishment in the circumstances

joe40

BoatMad wrote: »

goodness , walk down any street after closing time and you'll see plenty of that

or have you not overhead a bunch of lads with a few pints talking recently

if we adopted your moral code, we would be extracting apologies from half of the lads under 25 in the country ( sadly )

It's not the same and you know it. Trying to equate their behaviour with typical lads out trying to get off with girls, s not correct.

BoatMad

joe40 wrote: »

It's not the same and you know it. Trying to equate their behaviour with typical lads out trying to get off with girls, s not correct.

the point is we " tolerate " this laddish behaviour every day of the week, I dont see night club owners demanding apologies from clubbers, every time some bloke uses a slang word in relation to women, I hear c&nt, bit&h etc used all the time in quite casual conversation in Ireland for example

I fail to see why we suddenly are demanding apologies from a few idiots with a stack of drink on them , all of a sudden

FrancieBrady

joe40 wrote: »

It's not the same and you know it. Trying to equate their behaviour with typical lads out trying to get off with girls, s not correct.

Honestly, I think you live a very sheltered life.

I work, as I said, in a bar from time to time, and this pales into insignificance in comparison to some of what goes on and what is said, by both sexes.

joe40

BoatMad wrote: »

the point is we " tolerate " this laddish behaviour every day of the week, I dont see night club owners demanding apologies from clubbers, every time some bloke uses a slang word in relation to women, I hear c&nt, bit&h etc used all the time in quite casual conversation in Ireland for example

I fail to see why we suddenly are demanding apologies from a few idiots with a stack of drink on them , all of a sudden

I take your point but something about writing down those comments in the cold light of day when sober is really loathsome for me. If it had been verbal banter while drunk that would be different. Still damaging for people in their position. But less so in my opinion

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here's an example of how the public can forget and put aside a 'private' (intended only for those partaking in the conversation) racist comment.
All this was forgotten about and the perpetrator was allowed to continue his career and public life.

Double standards or just a well managed controversy by party HQ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/sep/15/world.race

I think it probably helped the case to die down by the fact that racism isn't as big a problem in Ireland as it is in the UK and of course the fact that the Congo isn't a neighbouring country, so it was probably people who have a vested interest in politics who got worked up about it, but I'd be pretty sure the general population were not too incensed by it.

RabbleRouser2k

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here's an example of how the public can forget and put aside a 'private' (intended only for those partaking in the conversation) racist comment.
All this was forgotten about and the perpetrator was allowed to continue his career and public life.

Double standards or just a well managed controversy by party HQ?

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2002/sep/15/world.race

It wasn't forgotten-he got dragged through it on Tv, even on Questions and Answers, and was scolded by many.

He had to make a full apology, and it was a long time before it was 'forgotten'. Nobody buried it, Kenny got caught by the proverbials during it.

BoatMad

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Honestly, I think you live a very sheltered life.

I work, as I said, in a bar from time to time, and this pales into insignificance in comparison to some of what goes on and what is said, by both sexes.

of course

the point is that this attempt at moral outrage over the texts and the attempts at an apology extraction have nothing too do with the context of the texts , had the lads been carted off in chains, you wouldn't have seen any demand for any apology over a whatsapps message ,

its simply an attempt to punish when no punishment is in reality due

NAGDEFI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Honestly, I think you live a very sheltered life.

I work, as I said, in a bar from time to time, and this pales into insignificance in comparison to some of what goes on and what is said, by both sexes.

I know you'll take this as intended Francie..work in the bar.

Are you Mick the Bull from The Savage Eye?!!


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=npqMPxanj9o

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Honestly, I think you live a very sheltered life.

I work, as I said, in a bar from time to time, and this pales into insignificance in comparison to some of what goes on and what is said, by both sexes.

Just because it happens doesn't make it ok. There is a big problem with alcohol in this country and while I don't know what the statistics about mental health are here in the republic, I read last week that something like 50% of young adults in Northern Ireland have or have had mental health issues.

FrancieBrady

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

It wasn't forgotten-he got dragged through it on Tv, even on Questions and Answers, and was scolded by many.

He had to make a full apology, and it was a long time before it was 'forgotten'. Nobody buried it, Kenny got caught by the proverbials during it.

I am assuming you would consider racism by a politician to be a serious charge on a par with a sexist one?

The point is, he was allowed to continue in his career after making a racist comment and owning up to it.

FrancieBrady

BoatMad wrote: »

of course

the point is that this attempt at moral outrage over the texts and the attempts at an apology extraction have nothing too do with the context of the texts , had the lads been carted off in chains, you wouldn't have seen any demand for any apology over a whatsapps message ,

its simply an attempt to punish when no punishment is in reality due

I said it earlier, the mob will have their pound of flesh...until they get bored and move on to the next 'thing'.

joe40

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Honestly, I think you live a very sheltered life.

I work, as I said, in a bar from time to time, and this pales into insignificance in comparison to some of what goes on and what is said, by both sexes.

No I don't think, I can still knock letterkenny in the wee small from time to time, even for an auld fella like me and see plenty of whats going. I was young once lived in England for years, house parties galore if I got lucky took every chance I got. So no I don't think sheltered but still think a bit of decency in.our interaction with others is worth promoting.

By the way you mentioned earlier that you were called a rapist on this thread. I thimk.I.have fundentally disagreed with all your posts.on this topic, but that is not on. Sorry to hear that

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

Just because it happens doesn't make it ok. There is a big problem with alcohol in this country and while I don't know what the statistics about mental health are here in the republic, I read last week that something like 50% of young adults in Northern Ireland have or have had mental health issues.

They are mostly young people out having their version of fun. Not my thing, but I am sure 'my thing' gave my parents cause for sleepless nights too.

This has been going on since Socrates.

“The children now love luxury. They have bad manners, contempt for authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place of exercise.”

jm08

BoatMad wrote: »

goodness , walk down any street after closing time and you'll see plenty of that

or have you not overhead a bunch of lads with a few pints talking recently

if we adopted your moral code, we would be extracting apologies from half of the lads under 25 in the country ( sadly )

Just because it happens doesn't make it right.

RabbleRouser2k

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am assuming you would consider racism by a politician to be a serious charge on a par with a sexist one?

The point is, he was allowed to continue in his career after making a racist comment and owning up to it.

That depends-Kenny gave an off colour joke, he didn't turn up to a Neo Nazi meet and greet.
It not like he went to court or anything.

Similar with sexism-if he made a similar joke that was sexist, then he would be in a similar 'apology' mode.

If on the other hand he was someone like Michael Colgan (Allegedly) then he'd be in trouble, to put it mildly.

FrancieBrady

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

That depends-Kenny gave an off colour joke, he didn't turn up to a Neo Nazi meet and greet.
It not like he went to court or anything.

Similar with sexism-if he made a similar joke that was sexist, then he would be in a similar 'apology' mode.

If on the other hand he was someone like Michael Colgan (Allegedly) then he'd be in trouble, to put it mildly.

'Off colour joke'???
A racist joke that caused great offence as opposed to some sexist comments that caused great offence.

Everyone here 'accepts the verdict' and as Boatmad says have now moved on to wanting careers to end because of the sexist remarks.

FrancieBrady

joe40 wrote: »

By the way you mentioned earlier that you were called a rapist on this thread. I thimk.I.have fundentally disagreed with all your posts.on this topic, but that is not on. Sorry to hear that

I didn't take it very seriously tbh. People say things without thinking.