Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

facehugger99

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Denying that this is a major political shift is bizarre. The left and the right have traded places in terms of who designates themselves the upholders of public morality in the form of punishing those who step out of line, and those who believe in personal freedom without such limits.

Such bullsh;t!

This is not left vs right issue. This is a common human decency issue.

The text messages were never the issue, not on their own - this was about behaviour, about how you'd like to see your sister or daughters or friends treated.

The people who've gone to war on this due to 'digital privacy' or the right to use certain words have backed the wrong fcuking horse!

You might also want to check the political credentials of the poster who's got the biggest post-count in this thread (by far) to see how far off the mark you are.

Captain Obvious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If being a liberal used to involve defending freedom of speech, and being a liberal now involves demanding that people be fired for the words they have written, how is that not a gigantic political shift? It's as gigantic a political shift as it would be if the right suddenly began championing universal healthcare, while the left suddenly began waxing lyrical about the wonders of a two-tiered health insurance system.

No, that's how you define it and it's how some on the far left have decided to label themselves. Doesn't change the fact that there are still people with liberal views that have not gone far left.

hatrickpatrick

facehugger99 wrote: »

Such bullsh;t!

This is not left vs right issue. This is a common human decency issue.

The text messages were never the issue, not on their own - this was about behaviour, about how you'd like to see your sister or daughters or friends treated.

Ok, then if this has absolutely nothing to do with the text messages and everything to do with behaviour, which behaviour is it that was wrong? Engaging in consensual group sex? Getting drunk at a house party? I'm all ears. It's been established beyond a reasonable doubt that what happened was not rape, in case you've forgotten.

The people who've gone to war on this due to 'digital privacy' or the right to use certain words have backed the wrong fcuking horse!

Is that because you don't think that this is a major factor in the case, or because you believe that private correspondence should be subject to morality policing?

You might also want to check the political credentials of the poster who's got the biggest post-count in this thread (by far) to see how far off the mark you are.

As silly as this may sound, I have no idea how one checks the in-thread post count of particular individuals - the only post count I know of is the number of posts a user has across the entire site as a whole. If you feel like enlightening me, I'll of course look into it - but I genuinely have no idea what you might be getting at here.

hatrickpatrick

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No, that's how you define it and it's how some on the far left have decided to label themselves. Doesn't change the fact that there are still people with liberal views that have not gone far left.

Oh I agree entirely with this, I'm talking about the mainstream. I fundamentally maintain that one cannot be a 'liberal' and oppose freedom of speech simultaneously, it's more or less an oxymoron.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Such bullsh;t!

This is not left vs right issue. This is a common human decency issue.

The text messages were never the issue, not on their own - this was about behaviour, about how you'd like to see your sister or daughters or friends treated.

The people who've gone to war on this due to 'digital privacy' or the right to use certain words have backed the wrong fcuking horse!

You might also want to check the political credentials of the poster who's got the biggest post-count in this thread (by far) to see how far off the mark you are.

If it not about the messages now :rolleyes: and about behaviour, what is your problem with a consensual threesome?

FrancieBrady

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Oh I agree entirely with this, I'm talking about the mainstream. I fundamentally maintain that one cannot be a 'liberal' and oppose freedom of speech simultaneously, it's more or less an oxymoron.

I think there is a really dangerous erosion of rights in this regard.

And I don't think a lot of people will realise it until it is too late.

joe40

Do people honestly believe that the IRFU bowed to fringe elements on the internet. I would give them more credit than that. They took stock of the general public opinion on this matter and acted accordingly. Normal people are not as easily influenced by the twitterati as you like to imagine.
I love how some like to present themselves as the lone voice of reason when majority are just easily influenced fools

Mrsmum

Poll on the Clare Byrne Show tonight: 69% agreed with IRFU decision, 19% disagreed.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

Poll on the Clare Byrne Show tonight: 69% agreed with IRFU decision, 19% disagreed.

The model's story is interesting. Somebody taking personal responsibility and not ending up in situations which she says herself 'could have ended very differently'.

It should be the message coming from this case too, for men and women. But no, it's all about the bad men, innit? :rolleyes:

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The model's story is interesting. Somebody taking personal responsibility and not ending up in situations which she says herself 'could have ended very differently'.

It should be the message coming from this case too, for men and women. But no, it's all about the bad men, innit? :rolleyes:

Yeah could have ended very differently say if someone ie a man raped her.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yeah could have ended very differently say if someone ie a man raped her.

Is someone more interested in getting the dig in, I wonder?

RabbleRouser2k

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yeah could have ended very differently say if someone ie a man raped her.

Or she bumped into some crazy wan accusing her of eyeing up her boyfriend-physical attacks happen also-its not always rape.

Apparently the club that was said to have interest in Jackson actually doesnt'. So he's still clubless.

AllForIt

Mrsmum wrote: »

Poll on the Clare Byrne Show tonight: 69% agreed with IRFU decision, 19% disagreed.

Asking if the IRFU made the right decision is not exactly the same as asking if the outcome was the right one.

Lucy8080

If this case happened south of the border , those lads would still be in their jobs.

Their right to anonymity until found guilty would have seen to this.

It's scary that a rape accusation can be made and ruin livelihoods and tattoo someone negatively for life-even though they are found "not guilty".

Any crazy/malicious woman ( they do exist), up north, now has another weapon in her arsenal to destroy a man she feels slighted by.

RabbleRouser2k

AllForIt wrote: »

Asking if the IRFU made the right decision is not exactly the same as asking if the outcome was the right one.

True-wording in these polls tends to be a bit 'loose'. You could ask 'do you agree with the irfu's decision'-I think that would be more accurate.

But that's a different matter, I guess.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

If this case happened south of the border , those lads would still be in their jobs.

Their right to anonymity until found guilty would have seen to this.

It's scary that a rape accusation can be made and ruin livelihoods and tattoo someone negatively for life-even though they are found "not guilty".

Any crazy/malicious woman ( they do exist), up north, now has another weapon in her arsenal to destroy a man she feels slighted by.

In the South, there would probably have been a 'the two guys are injured-out for the rest of the season'. But would they have returned-I don't know. I don't know if they would.

I would argue that 'fake claims' have always been out there-Michael Flatley was accused of rape a number of years ago. Flatley admitted to a consensual encounter (while engaged to Lisa Murphy)so his image was tarnished, but the case went to court, in the US-and was thrown out by the judge due to the claim being found to be completely fabricated.
As for was the claim 'fake'-you don't undergo an invasive examination, including video of your cervix, as well as expensive legal bills, in order to ruin a person's reputation.

She, and the law, believed she had a legitimate claim-a thorough examination of the prosecution and defense's claims found the defense not liable.

FrancieBrady

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Or she bumped into some crazy wan accusing her of eyeing up her boyfriend-physical attacks happen also-its not always rape.

And the big elephant in the room that dare not speak it's name - that she might have consented to something she would not ordinarily have done. And some unfortunate would pay a high price for it later.

goz83

Mrsmum wrote: »

Poll on the Clare Byrne Show tonight: 69% agreed with IRFU decision, 19% disagreed.

Well if the Claire Byrne show, the epicentre of balanced, unbiased debate says so :rolleyes:

Yeah_Right

Mrsmum wrote: »

Note sure what this means.
Is coloured not the right term, maybe not ??
Or are you poking fun at the idea of my son having coloured/black friends ?? In which case he goes to a very large Dublin school. How could he not have friends of all sorts including coloured/black.
What is your point ?

It's racist. Commonly used in the American south and apartheid South Africa. Surprised you didn't know this. Didn't you say you were a teacher or worked with young people? (Apologies if I've mixed you up with another poster).

goz83

Yeah_Right wrote: »

It's racist. Commonly used in the American south and apartheid South Africa. Surprised you didn't know this. Didn't you say you were a teacher or worked with young people? (Apologies if I've mixed you up with another poster).

Correct. She’s the teacher. Seems she needs to catch up on age old racism speak.

ArthurDayne

joe40 wrote: »

Do people honestly believe that the IRFU bowed to fringe elements on the internet. I would give them more credit than that. They took stock of the general public opinion on this matter and acted accordingly. Normal people are not as easily influenced by the twitterati as you like to imagine.
I love how some like to present themselves as the lone voice of reason when majority are just easily influenced fools

Firstly, it's a perceived public opinion. Secondly, even if the perception was correct, saying that justice has been served because public opinion is in favour seems cynical. Public opinion should not be a cornerstone of one's opinion as to whether justice has been done in the course of events.

Is there really not a case for saying that, as they have committed no crime, have they not already been punished enough for their bad behaviour? The guys have been portrayed firstly as rapists, then at the very least sexual deviants / creeps / enablers of rape / misogynists / women-beaters. Despite having committed no crime they have lost two years of their lives, lost their reputations and their morally questionable behaviour at the time has been examined with intense scrutiny. Had those Whatsapp messages emerged after the trial had concluded and the 'not guilty' verdict rendered, things may well have been different. Instead, due to the fact the trial had not concluded, the significance of the messages was magnified as part of the 'will they get done' discussion. People formed a view in advance of the verdict, and that view was hard to dis-embed regardless of the outcome.

The Head of Ulster Rugby has said these guys will never play for Ulster again.
Regardless of public opinion, and regardless of whather the IRFU decision was the sensible one -- I am yet to be convinced that justice has been done here.

Lucy8080

"As for was the claim 'fake'-you don't undergo an invasive examination, including video of your cervix, as well as expensive legal bills, in order to ruin a person's reputation." Quote from rabblerouser2k

My answer.

Maybe you would not, but others have. I don't think anyone would deny False rape claims have happened.

Whatever the motivation behind such actions, I'll accept that you would never do such a thing. Just like I accept the jurys findings of "not guilty.

What I don't accept is your "belief" that people are not capable of going on such a journey.

Woman accept Gynecological examinations as one of lives burdens. Most women I know are miles ahead of men when it comes to accepting intrusive examinations.

Also, I'm not sure if the accuser had to pay for her representation ( I'll stand corrected on that point).

Larbre34

ArthurDayne wrote: »

The Head of Ulster Rugby has said these guys will never play for Ulster again.
Regardless of public opinion, and regardless of whather the IRFU decision was the sensible one -- I am yet to be convinced that justice has been done here.

Actually he didn't. He said repeatedly that is what was "envisaged" by the "joint Ulster Rugby / IRFU" action, but refused to say the word 'never'.

The reason for that, is that it is not in his gift to say so.

A) the incumbent administrators who did this deal will not be around forever, future executives and coaches will be free to hire these guys back if the environment is right, they have done nothing wrong (either criminally or contractually). Obviously the poisonous rancour and division around the whole thing meant it was mutually advantageous for both sides to end the relationship for now.

it is widely acknowledged that this orchestrated exit was by means of compensation in the amount of the full value of their contracts up to summer 2019, when both were to expire. This is only right, as it would have been a massive legal misstep to have attempted to dismiss them forthwith.

Some people don't like facts getting in the way of a bit of good outrage and obviously sponsors get a bit nervy in such circumstances, but imagine the mayhem if one of these whiter-than-white types casting the first stones on social media now, were ever wronged by the very legal system they criticise for a considered and dispassionate outcome in this case, they'd turn themselves inside out with hypocrisy.

Larbre34

goz83 wrote: »

Well if the Claire Byrne show, the epicentre of balanced, unbiased debate says so :rolleyes:

To be fair, this is not just a show of hands on Question Time, the Claire Byrne panel is put together and vetted externally and has a fixed sample of 1,000 much like any Sunday paper opinion poll, its not inherently skewed like a Joe Duffy text poll would be.

RabbleRouser2k

There was an interesting article on independent.ie on the difference between Jackson and Olding's apologies.
Neither was needed, or warranted, but there's an interesting dissection of how Olding and Jackson failed and succeeded.

https://www.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/dr-ciara-kelly-why-its-always-important-to-hear-the-words-im-sorry-36805422.html

Outlaw Pete

joe40 wrote: »

Do people honestly believe that the IRFU bowed to fringe elements on the internet. I would give them more credit than that. They took stock of the general public opinion on this matter and acted accordingly. Normal people are not as easily influenced by the twitterati as you like to imagine.

Nonsense. See, that's just it. Some would have us believe that the rad fems are just a 'fringe element' but they are far from that and they indeed exist in the real world and have a lot of leverage in it too. Look at the NWCI's Twitter page and you'll see that they regularly retweet the misandric bile that the members of the fringe element you speak of churns out.

This has nothing to do with the views of the 'general public' as you suggest. It was about yielding to those who had the power to make their lives difficult and doing just what the pressure groups wanted them to do. A sign of the times if ever there was one.




https://twitter.com/NWCI/status/985081843178508288

facehugger99

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the views of the 'general public' as you suggest.

Incorrect.

Numerous polls have shown a huge majority in favour of them being let go by Ulster and Ireland. You can refuse to accept that reality and rail about the feminazis ruining everything for you, but it kinda makes your posts look really stupid.

goz83

Larbre34 wrote: »

To be fair, this is not just a show of hands on Question Time, the Claire Byrne panel is put together and vetted externally and has a fixed sample of 1,000 much like any Sunday paper opinion poll, its not inherently skewed like a Joe Duffy text poll would be.

Aside from the fact that 1000 people is a statistically tiny number for a poll, I am not privy to the CB poll selection process. RTE have time and again have shown a bias in favour of the perceived public opinion and CB herself is a less than wholesome presenter imo. Didn't she cheat on her first husband which ended their marriage. There was some other media frenzy about her next long term relationship and how it ended, but I can't recall the details. She is a woman who loves attention and the camera.

Unfortunately, most people will just go along with the perceived mood, rather than be in the perceived minority. Here, in the real world, I have had conversations with alot of people about the decision of the IRFU (and I don't follow rugby). There is a 50/50 split in opinion, but here'e the important bit. The ones who were against the IRFU decision were relatively well informed about the details of the case and the messages. The ones who agreed with the decision were largely oblivious to the details and a few knew nothing about the text messages at all.

So, did the CB panel vet people on their knowledge of the case and the texts? Unless that is a definite yes....then the poll means SFA.

Captain Obvious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ok, then if this has absolutely nothing to do with the text messages and everything to do with behaviour, which behaviour is it that was wrong? Engaging in consensual group sex? Getting drunk at a house party? I'm all ears. It's been established beyond a reasonable doubt that what happened was not rape, in case you've forgotten.

It absolutely has not.

Captain Obvious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Oh I agree entirely with this, I'm talking about the mainstream. I fundamentally maintain that one cannot be a 'liberal' and oppose freedom of speech simultaneously, it's more or less an oxymoron.

Not really. There often comes a point were rights and views compete. Freedom of speech versus freedom from harassment being the main conflict we see now. This is where the left is at odds with itself as there is no real consensus as to where the line between the two are.

Mrsmum

goz83 wrote: »

Aside from the fact that 1000 people is a statistically tiny number for a poll, I am not privy to the CB poll selection process. RTE have time and again have shown a bias in favour of the perceived public opinion and CB herself is a less than wholesome presenter imo. Didn't she cheat on her first husband which ended their marriage. There was some other media frenzy about her next long term relationship and how it ended, but I can't recall the details. She is a woman who loves attention and the camera.

Unfortunately, most people will just go along with the perceived mood, rather than be in the perceived minority. Here, in the real world, I have had conversations with alot of people about the decision of the IRFU (and I don't follow rugby). There is a 50/50 split in opinion, but here'e the important bit. The ones who were against the IRFU decision were relatively well informed about the details of the case and the messages. The ones who agreed with the decision were largely oblivious to the details and a few knew nothing about the text messages at all.

So, did the CB panel vet people on their knowledge of the case and the texts? Unless that is a definite yes....then the poll means SFA.

So basically your conversations are more valid than the Amarach poll. Ok then. I'm sure we're all impressed by that.
As for what you said about CB herself - Do you hold all male presenters, sports commentators etc to the same standards ?