Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

tritium

Foxtrol wrote: »

In the years before this incident a woman ended up leaving the country due to the gossip, video, and chat screenshots from the next day of her night with 2 rugby players.

.

This is an interesting observation. Given the similarities here in terms of disrespect for ones sexual partners I wonder how many of Jackson’s and Olding detractors on here are willing to endorse what happened to her at the hands of the great Irish public? Too much? Too little(I’m looking the vengeance porn crowd with their call’s for world rugby involvement here)?

Faugheen

goz83 wrote: »

Slut is a word used for promiscuous people....not just women. It's also used in gest. If the show fits...



A persons behaviour is a reflection of the person. Sure, there might be one-offs which are never to be seen again, but ongoing behaviours are a true reflection of the individual and/or group.

People are labelled all the time, sometimes unjustly. People are called sluts, legends, bastards, scumbags, misogynists and so on. Conversations would be difficult to have in some instances were we unable to use labels. Labels are a way to cut through the PC sh1te we wrap ourselves in these days.



TBF, the implication was there when you suggested "big strong rugby players". I don't see that it could mean anything else other than fear of being forced to do something.

You also can't put yourself in the complainants shoes and imagine what she might have felt. It's unhelpful speculation at best.

I said straight afterwards that it was at this point that she froze. No implication of force whatsoever.

As for the second paragraph, fair enough, but I expect you to call out people who are saying she falsely accused them of rape because that's more than unhelpful.

facehugger99

goz83 wrote: »

People are labelled all the time, sometimes unjustly. People are called sluts, legends, bastards, scumbags, misogynists and so on. Conversations would be difficult to have in some instances were we unable to use labels. Labels are a way to cut through the PC sh1te we wrap ourselves in these days.

Nope, that's just a load of ****e that you've made up.

Yeah_Right

It was pretty obvious from the moment they were charged that Jackson and Olding were going to have to leave the country if they wanted to continue their rugby careers. The only way that they were going to able to stay in Ireland was if the complainant recanted her story or video footage emerged showing her to be a willing and enthusiastic participant. If it's true that they have signed with Exeter and Clermont then that's impressive. Those are 2 big name clubs. Hope the guys go well over there.

Having read through the posts from the past couple of days, I thought I should try to clear a couple of things up.

One poster was claiming that if this happened in any other rugby playing country it would be the same outcome. That the players would be fired. Not true. I can think of numerous occasions in NZ, Australia and France where the player kept their job despite being found GUILTY of domestic violence, assault, accidental death, drink driving, burglary. Some of them served prison time and then returned to the field. I can also think of allegations of sexual harassment, rape and sexual assault in those countries and the UK where the players were found not guilty and were allowed to continue their careers. In some cases (both the guilty and not guilty ones) they were suspended and had to do some community service but their lives weren't destroyed.

Someone also mentioned NZ as being a very Christian country. No. It's not.

Calling Olding and Jackson big strong rugby players is just wrong. They may be strong but they're not big! FFS they're an outhalf and a utility back.

Also I don't like this idea being pushed on here that young women need to cover up and dress more conservatively. I love women. And I enjoy looking at beautiful, sexy, confident women and I think its great seeing them scantily dressed. Just to be clear I'm not talking about standing there drooling or wolf-whistling or cat-calling. Just appreciating beauty in a sexy outfit.

Also I think promiscuity is getting a bad rap. Promiscuity is great. I think there needs to be more of it.

joe40

So is Paddy Wallace now one of the hysterical social media mob or reflecting public opinion. Surely he is under no compulsion to express views he is not comfortable with. From the Irish independant

Speaking to RTE Radio, Wallace said: "The decision itself was probably the decision that had to be made given the public pressure that was mounting and also the sponsorship issue.
"I have my own views on that but someone in Ulster Rugby has to come out and make that very clear."
Wallace also pointed out that he agreed with the Ulster and IRFU statement and agrees that Jackson and Olding need to move on to "rebuild their brand". But he reiterated the frustration among the Kingspan Stadium faithful.
"The vast majority in official Supporters Clubs are very disappointed," added Wallace.
"I think that's because they are fans of the game. They probably feel that these guys have been acquitted and they are being judged on their text messages which were obviously completely out of order and that is the core issue here.

goz83

Faugheen wrote: »

I said straight afterwards that it was at this point that she froze. No implication of force whatsoever.

As for the second paragraph, fair enough, but I expect you to call out people who are saying she falsely accused them of rape because that's more than unhelpful.

But then we have to ask why you used the word "froze". Could it be because she was in fear that she would be forced to do the bidding of the big strong rugby players? You do see the implication, right?

I am aware that the word "froze" was used in the proceedings, so that doesn't need to be repeated. I am bringing it up here because you imagined yourself in the complainants shoes and insinuated that she froze because she was surrounded by yada yada yada.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Nope, that's just a load of ****e that you've made up.

Sorry, but it happens to be the case. You saying otherwise does not change that. I'll move on, as I have seen how you drag points on to the point of trolling.

ArthurDayne

joe40 wrote: »

So is Paddy Wallace now one of the hysterical social media mob or reflecting public opinion. Surely he is under no compulsion to express views he is not comfortable with. From the Irish independant

Speaking to RTE Radio, Wallace said: "The decision itself was probably the decision that had to be made given the public pressure that was mounting and also the sponsorship issue.
"I have my own views on that but someone in Ulster Rugby has to come out and make that very clear."
Wallace also pointed out that he agreed with the Ulster and IRFU statement and agrees that Jackson and Olding need to move on to "rebuild their brand". But he reiterated the frustration among the Kingspan Stadium faithful.
"The vast majority in official Supporters Clubs are very disappointed," added Wallace.
"I think that's because they are fans of the game. They probably feel that these guys have been acquitted and they are being judged on their text messages which were obviously completely out of order and that is the core issue here.

Paddy Wallace is entitled to his views but, I must say, the sentences you have chosen to add emphasis to seem to reflect a certain confirmation-bias on your part.

In any case, from my own reading of this article referencing the Wallace’s view, I must say he does not seem overly convinced by the decision (https://www.rte.ie/sport/rugby/2018/0416/954820-wallace-believes-ulster-fans-need-a-better-explanation/). But that may well be my own confirmation-bias!

joe40

I fully agree that confirmation bias is something we all should guard against, and you're right I highlighted point to support an opinion.
I don't want to re run a discussion on the text messages, but the recurring argument here was either:
(a) They were private so no concern to anyone
(b) They were not that bad - fairly typical for everyone that age
It is just refreshing that he was able to describe them as "completely out of order"

Personally I would like to see them play for Ulster and Ireland since they apologised and have already paid a high price.
I was very disappointed with the amount of people that tried to play down the whole incident on this forum and could see no wrongdoing whatsoever.
Even Paddy Wallace doesn't seem to concur with that particular view

hatrickpatrick

Appledreams15 wrote: »

what he apologised for.

Way to dodge actually answering the question.

Again: Specifically, which of his actions on or subsequent to that night was, in your view, wrongdoing?

goz83

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Way to dodge actually answering the question.

Again: Specifically, which of his actions on or subsequent to that night was, in your view, wrongdoing?

You won't get a straight answer for from that one. She's been avoiding answering straight forward questions I asked here about sexism and undeniable bias. Her contempt for men is staggering and I for one am glad we have one less of her type in the country.

facehugger99

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Way to dodge actually answering the question.

Again: Specifically, which of his actions on or subsequent to that night was, in your view, wrongdoing?

Amazing he's been let go by Ulster Rugby and the IRFU, made an apology and meekly accepted the consequences considering the lack of wrongdoing.

Quite unprecedented situation.

blanch152

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Not since November of last year-he's being sued.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/dublin-football-star-diarmuid-connolly-acted-despicably-1.3279070

Still hasn't been resolved.

The incident occurred six years ago!!!

meeeeh

Omackeral wrote: »

I think that's literally what it's defined as?

It's defined as a degrading term for a promiscuous woman. Would you call a black person a ******?

RabbleRouser2k

blanch152 wrote: »

The incident occurred six years ago!!!

Read the article-or this one.

https://www.thesun.ie/news/1109200/gaa-star-diarmuid-connolly-getting-sued-by-man-he-apologised-to-over-pub-assault/

It hasn't been resolved-he's being sued, as all letters that they tried to deliver to him were returned as 'not at this address'. And he still owes €50 000 euros in damages.

Omackeral

meeeeh wrote: »

It's defined as a degrading term for a promiscuous woman. Would you call a black person a ******?

No, I wouldn't and don't. Just saying the definition for slut is given as ''a woman who has many casual sexual partners''. I recognise it's a pejorative word though.

Kerry69

The people I feel the most sorry for here are the parents of all parties involved. I know I would be heartbroken if any of them were mine.

hatrickpatrick

facehugger99 wrote: »

Amazing he's been let go by Ulster Rugby and the IRFU, made an apology and meekly accepted the consequences considering the lack of wrongdoing.

Quite unprecedented situation.

Not unprecedented at all. In this age of witch hunts, it's fairly spot on. Still doesn't mean anyone did anything wrong. As far as I'm concerned, someone could admit to having a man-crush on Adolf Hitler himself in a private text message to a close friend and it still wouldn't qualify as wrongdoing, because it's private chat among friends, not a public statement. It's that simple.

Kerry69

Silentcorner wrote: »

That is the point you made, your words....absolutely disgusting when you consider the state she arrived home in, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Couldn't agree more, one of the most disgusting things I've ever read.

facehugger99

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, ...

Yeah about that. The rest of us all got together and decided we thought different about it.

Sorry.

Kerry69

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh, sure it is.
So large you want to spend your time tut tutting in other people's bedrooms.
Born again Roman Catholic morality

The most ironic post I've read on this whole thread!!

You've spent the whole thread telling us how some women deserve to be called sluts and you're talking about others looking in the bedroom? Really?

Boulevardier

"As far as I'm concerned, someone could admit to having a man-crush on Adolf Hitler himself in a private text message to a close friend and it still wouldn't qualify as wrongdoing, because it's private chat among friends, not a public statement. It's that simple."

I completely agree with this. It is completely unjust for someone to have their career destroyed because private comments happened to become public in the course of a trial, and particularly in the course of a trial in which they were found not guilty. It is also gross hypocrisy for "liberal" commentators to say that this is OK, which almost all the media have done.

Sile Na Gig

I imagine that the fact that they had rough sex with a girl and were so enamoured with their own legendary status that they didn’t consider her pleasure, left her bleeding and upset without saying goodbye, then joked about it was going to make them a very hard sell to their sponsors who after all pay their wages. None of these facts are debated. That’s capitalism folks.

Personally I couldn’t care less who chases a ball around a field.

facehugger99

Boulevardier wrote: »

I completely agree with this. It is completely unjust for someone to have their career destroyed because private comments happened to become public in the course of a trial, and particularly in the course of a trial in which they were found not guilty. It is also gross hypocrisy for "liberal" commentators to say that this is OK, which almost all the media have done.

Wasn't just the texts.

A drunk teenager was left hysterical and bleeding by a ****faced PJ and SO. They didn't even have the common decency to walk her to a taxi or make sure she got home ok.

They then engaged a series of dehumanizing comments about her the next day with their mates.

None of the above is being contested by them.

Christ knows what else they might be guilty of but we got different stories from all parties as to what went on in that bedroom and I suspect the actual truth lay somewhere in the middle.

Don't fcuking tell me they didn't do anything wrong! Their behavior was nothing short of abominable and fell several furlongs below what I expect of any decent human, much less people who proport to represent the national team.

Good riddance to them.

goz83

Kerry69 wrote: »

The most ironic post I've read on this whole thread!!

You've spent the whole thread telling us how some women deserve to be called sluts and you're talking about others looking in the bedroom? Really?

Is that you Apples?

givyjoe

facehugger99 wrote: »

Wasn't just the texts.

A drunk teenager was left hysterical and bleeding by a ****faced PJ and SO. They didn't even have the common decency to walk her to a taxi or make sure she got home ok.

They then engaged a series of dehumanizing comments about her the next day with their mates.

None of the above is being contested by them.

Christ knows what else they might be guilty of but we got different stories from all parties as to what went on in that bedroom and I suspect the actual truth lay somewhere in the middle.

Don't fcuking tell me they didn't do anything wrong! They're behavior was nothing short of abominable and fell several furlongs below what I expect of any decent human, much less people who proport to represent the national team.

Good riddance to them.

She made it to the party ok by herself though didnt she? Or rather without PJ's invite or assistance.

skearnsot

facehugger99 wrote: »

Nope, that's just a load of ****e that you've made up.

You really are deluded

Kerry69

Clermont aren't interested apparently.

skearnsot

Omackeral wrote: »

I think that's literally what it's defined as?

It’s also what women call promiscuous women

drkpower

facehugger99 wrote: »

Don't fcuking tell me they didn't do anything wrong! Their behavior was nothing short of abominable and fell several furlongs below what I expect of any decent human, much less people who proport to represent the national team.

Good riddance to them.

I agree; their behaviour was morally reprehensible.

But sacking someone for morally defunct behaviour, which was consensual, non-criminal, and occurred in private, is a very dangerous road.

Who is to be the arbiter of moralilty here? For instance, if Johnny Sexton* ends up cheating on his wife with 3 underwear models, is he off the plane for Japan? Morally, i would consider adultery to be far worse than being ****ty to a one night stand and sending offensive Whatsapp messages.

Or if a former partner/friend of Tadhg Furlong* publicises some nasty offensive mysoginistic texts from his past, is he gone too?

* obviously this hasnt happened....

meeeeh

skearnsot wrote: »

It’s also what women call promiscuous women

Speak for yourself. I'm a woman and I don't and never would. It's none of my business how promiscuous someone is and I don't know why something so irrelevant should influence my opinion of them.