Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

NAGDEFI

mfceiling wrote: »

People change their minds? Not on here they don't. They are presented with a jury returning a verdict which clears 2 men of rape but to the I'll informed they are still guilty.
Who's the "little bad mannered chap"?
Seems I touched a nerve with you before and you've the shield up.
Run along and find another crusade to join when this one's over "like a good little chap".

You were very bad mannered a few days ago and can't handle the heat now.

Not found guilty of rape, yes. But do we have to spell it out for you that a 19 year old leaving a house in distress, coarse language etc is not what a MAJORITY want from their rugby internationals. Little chap.

FrancieBrady

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Did it ever cross your mind that a lot of people across the spectrum, of both genders, say NO. That's not acceptable behaviour from somebody representing their country. Regardless of the men being found not guilty of rape? They have an opinion, and because it differs from yours they need not be denigrated as a mob, twitterati, feminazis.

In that case your opinions are only representative of a smaller 'mob'.

I want men representing my country who respect women. And if many speak of terms such as fcuking sluts, spit roasting etc, that doesn't make it right. It's time people were held accountable for their behaviour before this type of language and attitude becomes a norm throughout society.

Did it ever cross your mind that just because you refer to some people (sexually promiscuous ones) as sluts that it doesn't mean you refer to or think of ALL women like that?
Just as you refer to different types of men.

mfceiling

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Your brother in law the solicitor! Wow! Aren't we in excellent company this evening.

Sarcasm much? I'm sure even you have a friend/relation or colleague who is involved in law.
Run your genius arguments about Jackson and Olding past him/her.....see how little you actually know about the laws and what can and can't be used in evidence in court.

givyjoe

B0jangles wrote: »

Why do you think I am not concerned with fairness?

I admit that I find it a little depressing that if a poster with known feminist tendencies were to say that women should assume all men are potential rapists, there would be mass outrage, but when its one of your own, it's apparently just common sense to assume that all men are potential rapists.

It's not exactly unexpected, but depressing all the same.

Except that's not what they or anyone else bar yourself is saying. I thought you were being 'clever'. My mistake.

Not sure who you mean by 'one of your own'.

mfceiling

NAGDEFI wrote: »

You were very bad mannered a few days ago and can't handle the heat .

Jesus you are easily offended if you thought a few posts of mine were "bad mannered" (I presume you reported them).

Can't handle the heat from a few folk behind a keyboard....good one.

NAGDEFI

mfceiling wrote: »

Lads you are wasting your time trying to defend the lads.

The mob had their minds made up before the trial.
They had their opinions formed without all the information.
They jumped on a #notmycaptain bandwagon without any knowledge of why Rory Best was called to court.
They drew their own conclusions from the snippets of information they got from the press.
They heard that the lads were acquitted but refused to accept the juries decision...one idiot on twitter has tried to get the hash tag "retrial needed" trending.
They couldn't take the juries decision so jumped on private whatsapp messages to form judgement.

It wouldn't matter now if the complainant came out tomorrow and said she drank way too much and admitted she was consenting in all acts.
The lads are guilty in their eyes and that's all that matters.
The legal system is undermined by so many fools who seem to know more than any solicitor, barrister or judge.

My brother in law is a solicitor and we were talking about the case on Sunday. My wife is adamant that they are guilty. Unfortunately for her, every argument she gave was swiftly countered by him (he doesn't even live in ireland any more and has next to zero knowledge of the case)....it's interesting to see how someone with a legal background can tear to shreds someone who has nothing more than an opinion on this.

I'd say your memory is so poor and you are so used to condescending that you actually can't remember your insult.

I said Jackson was replaceabe. You quoted Joe Schmidt praising him after a game and said 'Joe Schmidt, heard of him?'.

Of course i put you in your box quoting an article where Joe praised Ian Keatley and explained to you that coaches praise for differing reasons. That it didn't necessarily mean that the player praised was world class.

mfceiling

Silentcorner wrote: »

There were others who were much more inconsistent, dangerously inconsistent in fact.

And the solicitors, jury and judge easily saw through this and convicted all 4.

No wait...

NAGDEFI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did it ever cross your mind that just because you refer to some people (sexually promiscuous ones) as sluts that it doesn't mean you refer to or think of ALL women like that?
Just as you refer to different types of men.

I don't like internationals referring to spit roasting or any women as sluts.

BBDBB

Put me down as offended but indomitable regardless

NAGDEFI

mfceiling wrote: »

Jesus you are easily offended if you thought a few posts of mine were "bad mannered" (I presume you reported them).

Can't handle the heat from a few folk behind a keyboard....good one.

You don't annoy me in the least but it's really easy to counter any argument you make.

FrancieBrady

NAGDEFI wrote: »

I don't like internationals referring to spit roasting or any women as sluts.

Why not?
Perfectly descriptive slang word for a promiscuous woman.
What should we call them?

BBDBB

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why not?
Perfectly descriptive slang word for a promiscuous woman.
What should we call them?

"ladies of casual virtue" used to be the term years ago, but thats a bit longwinded these days with all yer txtspk

NAGDEFI

mfceiling wrote: »

And the solicitors, jury and judge easily saw through this and convicted all 4.

No wait...

Baby steps...

Posters and people who do not want Jacko and Olding representing Ireland have reasons unrelated to the men being found not guilty.

They were found not guilty of rape, agreed. Rightly so.

Do a lot of people find their behaviour unacceptable for Irish internationals. Absolutely. Do people thing they were lads being lads, banter etc, absolutely.

At present a majority don't want them playing with Ireland.

tretorn

Look, the lads were the ones who got caught, can you not grasp that they arent unique in the way they refer to women.

I think women would object much more to a woman calling them sluts than they would if a man says it.

I would think the three women who were in the company of the woman who alleged rape were less than impressed when they saw her text calling them slutty, the didnt know her from Adam and they testified they felt sorry for her being there as a billy no mate. She called them slutty and then headed up to bed with PJ, you would laugh except for what happened afterwards.

BBDBB

No evidence to support that final conclusion

NAGDEFI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why not?
Perfectly descriptive slang word for a promiscuous woman.
What should we call them?

Firstly i like you Francie. You're not a bol*ix:D

I think it's context for me. Take slut on it's own, not too bad. Take all the terms, spit roasting, top shaggers, fcuking sluts and the overall impression is of lads who were very disrespectful, in my opinion.

We all know the phrase crossing the line...it's imaginery, but i feel the men crossed it.

NAGDEFI

mfceiling wrote: »

Sarcasm much? I'm sure even you have a friend/relation or colleague who is involved in law.
Run your genius arguments about Jackson and Olding past him/her.....see how little you actually know about the laws and what can and can't be used in evidence in court.

Sarcasm much?

Who speaks like that? Will you construct a sentence my good man.

mfceiling

NAGDEFI wrote: »

You don't annoy me in the least but it's really easy to counter any argument you make.

You should have been a solicitor then with your excellent Internet arguing skills.

The real solicitors however argued successfully that Jackson and Olding should be found not guilty of the charge.

I hope no other irish sports person sends or receives an inappropriate text or whatsapp message....the eternally offended will make sure their career is finished in a heartbeat.

mfceiling

NAGDEFI wrote: »

I'd say your memory is so poor and you are so used to condescending that you actually can't remember your insult.

Of course i put you in your box.

PM your address and I'll post your winners medal in the morning.

NAGDEFI

tretorn wrote: »

Look, the lads were the ones who got caught, can you not grasp that they arent unique in the way they refer to women.

I think women would object much more to a woman calling them sluts than they would if a man says it.

I would think the three women who were in the company of the woman who alleged rape were less than impressed when they saw her text calling them slutty, the didnt know her from Adam and they testified they felt sorry for her being there as a billy no mate. She called them slutty and then headed up to bed with PJ, you would laugh except for what happened afterwards.

Well is it not time to stop this behaviour Tretorn?

Someone always has to take the rap. Saying everyone speaks like that is the same as saying well i got caught speeding and was fined but everyone does it so it's grossly unfair. Everyone should have a fine in the post.

tretorn

joe40 wrote: »

Seriously, is that meant to be a serious post. I'm glad women don't all that cause I would have missed out on some great nights. I would say a lot of Irish marriages started with a night like that. Sex does not need to be assumed as a right in that situation by any half reasonable human being.
The rape crisis centre should be some sort of moral guardian for young women?
In a thread full of some idiotic posts that is up there with the best of them

Actually, I would say most of the rape cases that are reported are the result of women putting themselves into danger with drink on them, as I said it would be interesting to have the statistics but Noeline Blackwell thinks talking about whataspp messages is going to change behaviour so thats more important.

You are much more likely to get into an unpleasant situation engaging in casual sex with a total stranger than you are of getting a marriage proposal.

FrancieBrady

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Firstly i like you Francie. You're not a bol*ix:D

I think it's context for me. Take slut on it's own, not too bad. Take all the terms, spit roasting, top shaggers, fcuking sluts and the overall impression is of lads who were very disrespectful, in my opinion.

We all know the phrase crossing the line...it's imaginery, but i feel the men crossed it.

They were talking among themselves. Are you so seriously deluded to think that men and women are not similarly graphic when talking privately?

As suspected you are another one way up on a high moral ridge just wanting a win here. And the human beings caught in the moralistic headlights don't matter one iota.

NAGDEFI

mfceiling wrote: »

PM your address and I'll post your winners medal in the morning.

It might be beyond you in fairness..

P.s. I never report anyone. It wasn't an insult. Just an attempt at condescension you made.

Sile Na Gig

It’ll probably come down to money at the end of the day. Will sponsors drop a team that allows them to play.

It seems like that’s the case with a bunch of tv shows that got canceled when their stars were accused of sexual misconduct. The perception of guilt is more important than the reality.

BBDBB

Fair point NAGDEFI

we each must defend the line of what we deem as acceptable

To be clear I dont think what the 4 lads did was acceptable, it was a pretty low and disrespectful way to treat a girl. No question

However, do I believe that they should be forced to work out of the country because of it?
No

Theres a line of acceptable behaviour
Theres also a line of whats a reasonable and commensurate punishment for the 'crime'

For me, two years of hell, suspension from work, a 9 week trial that Ive put myself and my family through and then the ****storm that has followed online and in the media. For a Not Guilty verdict I think they've been punished enough for their crossing of a line which we cant agree on

FrancieBrady

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Well is it not time to stop this behaviour Tretorn?

Someone always has to take the rap. Saying everyone speaks like that is the same as saying well i got caught speeding and was fined but everyone does it so it's grossly unfair. Everyone should have a fine in the post.

You get a fine for 'speeding'.

These guys careers and livelihoods are on the line for a few rude words.

NAGDEFI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

They were talking among themselves. Are you so seriously deluded to think that men and women are not similarly graphic when talking privately?

As suspected you are another one way up on a high moral ridge just wanting a win here. And the human beings caught in the moralistic headlights don't matter one iota.

That's the whole definition of privacy today again. They got caught!

Poor old 75 year old George Hook was knocked off the air for saying a girl should be very careful on a night out. Do you not think there were going to be no consequences for such messages becoming public?

Sin é an t-saol!!

tretorn

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Well is it not time to stop this behaviour Tretorn?

Someone always has to take the rap. Saying everyone speaks like that is the same as saying well i got caught speeding and was fined but everyone does it so it's grossly unfair. Everyone should have a fine in the post.

As far as I was aware in this country you have the right to free association and the right to private communication with your friends.

How do you propose to police young mens conversations nagdefi.

You user name is very apt, you sound like a right old nag.

Why on earth would I care what sports players text to each other, the messages are not sent to cause me offence or harm, I have conversations on my phone I would clear if I was asked to go to a Garda Station, I can only imagine the mass clearing of phones that went on in the Rugby circles once news got out that Jackson and Olding were being questioned. The only problem as Gilroy found out to his cost, there is no point in clearing your phone after you have pressed the send button. If anyone should be barred from playing rugby its Gilroy, he said the worst text of all.

George Hook was bullied beyond belief and I knew Newstalk giving into cyber bullying was going to set a precedent and it has. The day he was sacked was the day the censor police took over and their tactics are frightening.

Thats the main reason why I want to see Jackson and Olding back, I dont care about rugby but I dont like bullying, braying mobs.

tritium

Mrsmum wrote: »

Considering how getting really drunk and engaging in sexual activity with a stranger has impacted on the lives of these men, I'm wondering why no advice for men on how to stay safe. Drink, strangers, sex - recipe for trouble. The more you engage in this risky business the more possibilities for 'misunderstanding' or as you say yourself "something untoward happening" . I would put getting raped in the worst category but being called a rapist is a very close second. So thanks for all the advice to us females on how not to get raped but maybe you could give a think about your son's safety too and have a word with him as well as your daughter heading out the door. The girl isn't the only one whose life could change utterly in one night. Again as you said yourself Common Sense.

Jesus it’s actually depressing how every thread about this subject ends up at this point (not just you mrsmum, both sides)

Looking just at this case, mrsmums advice is pretty solid to apply to both sexes. It’s always a bit late when we’re talking in “if” but

If he hadn’t got drunk
If she hadn’t got drunk
If he’d communicated better
If she’d communicated better

and so many other “ifs” out of this mess. Frankly ifs and regrets won’t do very much now with five lives ruined, a young woman believing she’s been raped, her life ruined and denied justice and two young men believing they’ve been unfairly accused of rape and had their lives destroyed. Being sure of their own position isn’t really going to help anyone here. So, would we be doing anyone a disservice if we actually tried to give both young men and women a little advice before they head out the door (well before) around drink and communication and probably a few other things.

No point doing it because of rapists, they’ll always be there, and sometimes luck is just ****ty. How about instead doing it to stop bad, life destroying things happening amongst people who actually aren’t looking to hurt each other?

NAGDEFI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You get a fine for 'speeding'.

These guys careers and livelihoods are on the line for a few rude words.

Yes but words are dangerous. You start any job and you get a lecture on how words and actions can be construed as racist, sexist, ageist, bullying etc. Words are as dangerous as actions.

We had a civil war over an oath of allegiance, a form of words.