Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Larbre34

goz83 wrote: »

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.

This pretty much negates anything else you have to say on the matter.

meeeeh

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.
.

You are outraged how Olding and Jackson were treated because of their What's app messages and then you dismiss Claire Byrne as journalist because of something that happened in her personal life years ago. Some might call that hypocrisy.

Cushie Butterfield

hatrickpatrick wrote:

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.

On a ‘main’ page view (in this case After Hours) if you look in the Replies column of any thread & click on the actual number (in blue) it leads to who posted & their number of posts in that thread.

See here:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=2057861488

The first thread was approaching 10,000 posts & locked so you’d usually have to take that one into account also, see here:
https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/misc.php?do=whoposted&t=2057856515

although in this instance the result would be the same.

goz83

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It absolutely has not.

The decision of the court would prove that in fact...it has.

Mrsmum wrote: »

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 ?

People have been talking about their own echo chambers and reverting to opinion polls. To me, yes, my conversations are more valid, because I at least established whether or not people I spoke to were up to date on the events of the trial and the aftermath. However, they are not relevant to others. However, I am entitled to share my experience should I choose to do so.

If I am made aware of certain events about people in the public view, I...like anyone else will form an opinion. My opinions are my own and are not formed with a gender bias agenda....as I generally keep those opinions to myself. That said...CB intentionally made her private life public and she does so on a regular basis, which helped me form the opinion that she will do whatever she can to get camera time. That's not what a healthy, balanced presenter does.

Just to give you a balanced view; I happen to think that Jeremy Kyle is one of the most shameful TV personalities around. But I don't recall him intending to make his private life public.

Larbre34 wrote: »

This pretty much negates anything else you have to say on the matter.

Please do explain and bless us all with your wisdom. If you make a statement like that, at least have the decency to follow through with a valid explanation.

meeeeh wrote: »

You are outraged how Olding and Jackson were treated because of their What's app messages and then you dismiss Claire Byrne as journalist because of something that happened in her personal life years ago. Some might call that hypocrisy.

When someone is so desperately addicted to the camera, I take what they say with a bag of salt. My point was focused on the panel and how the poll is unlikely to be a true reflection of the public mood. But then, that is my opinion.

Captain Obvious

goz83 wrote: »

The decision of the court would prove that in fact...it has.

Either you don't know how criminal courts work or you are deliberately misrepresenting how they work.

Cushie Butterfield

Mrsmum wrote:

Why don't you just explain your point.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30999175/warning-why-using-the-term-coloured-is-offensive

You’ve unwittingly demonstrated the reason why people’s private WhatsApp messages should be private, specifically the use of some terms e.g. slut or coloured people.

The term you used is considered by some to be a racist slur, so it’s probably best for you, if you insist on using the term on a digital platform just to use it in what you feel is a private conversation.

If you are in a position of trust, especially one where you might have influence over minors of an impressionable age, you could find yourself in deep water & branded a racist should someone decide to dig a bit further.

In the event that should happen you might possibly change your mind as regards the WhatsApp messages.

I hope for your sake you don’t suffer even 0.01% of what the rugby players have suffered, & will continue to suffer for the remainder of their lives.

So just be careful Mrsmum, loose lips (or in this case fingers) sink ships & can ruin lives & careers, even yours!

Thanks for providing such a wonderful example.

upandcumming

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Either you don't know how criminal courts work or you are deliberately misrepresenting how they work.

I know what you're saying, but do you believe in innocent until proven guilty?

Mrsmum

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30999175/warning-why-using-the-term-coloured-is-offensive

You’ve unwittingly demonstrated the reason why people’s private WhatsApp messages should be private, specifically the use of some terms e.g. slut or coloured people.

The term you used is considered by some to be a racist slur, so it’s probably best for you, if you insist on using the term on a digital platform just to use it in what you feel is a private conversation.

If you are in a position of trust, especially one where you might have influence over minors of an impressionable age, you could find yourself in deep water & branded a racist should someone decide to dig a bit further.

In the event that should happen you might possibly change your mind as regards the WhatsApp messages.

I hope for your sake you don’t suffer even 0.01% of what the rugby players have suffered, & will continue to suffer for the remainder of their lives.

So just be careful Mrsmum, loose lips (or in this case fingers) sink ships & can ruin lives & careers, even yours!

Thanks for providing such a wonderful example.

Ah but I would never treat anyone like they did. No one ever leaves my home feeling so bad they head to the police the next day.

meeeeh

goz83 wrote: »

When someone is so desperately addicted to the camera, I take what they say with a bag of salt. My point was focused on the panel and how the poll is unlikely to be a true reflection of the public mood. But then, that is my opinion.

So Because you think Claire Byrne likes media attention a pool commissioned by a program she presents but is no way the only person involved in it must be wrong. Sound logic.

upandcumming

Mrsmum wrote: »

Ah but I would never treat anyone like they did. No one ever leaves my home feeling so bad they head to the police the next day.

Imagine if they did... You'd have to give up your job, hounded out of your country to get work, away from family and friends and make apologies to the blue-haired mob.
Well, you won't have to do that as you are a woman, but you know where I'm coming from.

Captain Obvious

upandcumming wrote: »

I know what you're saying, but do you believe in innocent until proven guilty?

As a legal concept I do. It's necessary to prevent the government simply locking up citizens without reason or due process. But that doesn't mean people, or companies, can't make up their own minds about someone or something based on what they know.

goz83

Mrsmum wrote: »

Ah but I would never treat anyone like they did. No one ever leaves my home feeling so bad they head to the police the next day.

They might if they knew you called them by racist slurs. My wife is a teacher and works with children of many different races. She would be appalled to learn of a teacher so ignorant that she is not even aware of the racist language being used.

To be fair to you, I know that you did not intend to be racist. I’m sure PJ and SO did not intend to hurt that girl either. Whether we intend things or not, they clearly can have damaging consequences.

ArthurDayne

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/30999175/warning-why-using-the-term-coloured-is-offensive

You’ve unwittingly demonstrated the reason why people’s private WhatsApp messages should be private, specifically the use of some terms e.g. slut or coloured people.

The term you used is considered by some to be a racist slur, so it’s probably best for you, if you insist on using the term on a digital platform just to use it in what you feel is a private conversation.

If you are in a position of trust, especially one where you might have influence over minors of an impressionable age, you could find yourself in deep water & branded a racist should someone decide to dig a bit further.

In the event that should happen you might possibly change your mind as regards the WhatsApp messages.

I hope for your sake you don’t suffer even 0.01% of what the rugby players have suffered, & will continue to suffer for the remainder of their lives.

So just be careful Mrsmum, loose lips (or in this case fingers) sink ships & can ruin lives & careers, even yours!

Thanks for providing such a wonderful example.

This is absolutely true. MrsMum's use of the word 'coloured' was of course not intended to offend anyone. She wrote a post in her private capacity, and like anyone else speaking in private did not process and audit her words with the same level of stringent thought that one might do in public. In other words, despite using a racially offensive term, MrsMum does not strike me as a racist.

Let's say however that -- later today -- she were to get in an altercation with a black person, during which an accusation is made that she assaulted this person, and in the course of the trial her usage of the term 'coloured' was held up as being indicative that she held old-fashioned views towards black people which were throwback to a time when racism was more casually accepted. On the facts, MrsMum is acquitted of any crime but is pulled in front of an employment tribunal for using unacceptable language -- do we think justice would be served if MrsMum were to lose her job? Forget public opinion -- forget commercial considerations -- forget the optics of it -- the simple question is whether justice has been done.

I for one MrsMum would be defending you, on the basis that you made a silly comment, as we all do, without the intent to hurt anyone.

Cushie Butterfield

Mrsmum wrote: »

Ah but I would never treat anyone like they did. No one ever leaves my home feeling so bad they head to the police the next day.

One possible reason for that is they don’t know you refer to them using racist remarks, or at least to their faces.

Mrsmum

goz83 wrote: »

They might if they knew you called them by racist slurs. My wife is a teacher and works with children of many different races. She would be appalled to learn of a teacher so ignorant that she is not even aware of the racist language being used.

To be fair to you, I know that you did not intend to be racist. I’m sure PJ and SO did not intend to hurt that girl either. Whether we intend things or not, they clearly can have damaging consequences.

And yet Craig Gilroy is still in his job. So not just the words more the behaviour all round is why they are gone,

Appledreams15

upandcumming wrote: »

Mrsmum wrote: »

Ah but I would never treat anyone like they did. No one ever leaves my home feeling so bad they head to the police the next day.

Imagine if they did... You'd have to give up your job, hounded out of your country to get work, away from family and friends and make apologies to the blue-haired mob.
Well, you won't have to do that as you are a woman, but you know where I'm coming from.

who has blue hair?
No one at the protests had blue hair

Uncharted

Appledreams15 wrote: »

who has blue hair?
No one at the protests had blue hair

Marge Simpson.

joe40

There is a really false equivalence been put forward here between a poster using the word coloured, without realising it caused offence, and the contents of the whatsapp messages in question.
Did anyone actually read the article it was the well respected actor benedict Cumberbatch that used the term, and apologised when he realised it was offensive. No further action required it was totally unintentional and that was accepted
Compare that to the attitude of some people here that argue that the word "slut" should not be offensive, even if others find it extremely offensive.

upandcumming

Appledreams15 wrote: »

who has blue hair?
No one at the protests had blue hair

I'm not talking about the protests.

Appledreams15

Clermont have released a statement distancing themselves from Paddy Jackson.
Exetet have released a statement distancing themselves from Stuart Olding.

Uncharted

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Clermont have released a statement distancing themselves from Paddy Jackson.
Exetet have released a statement distancing themselves from Stuart Olding.

Thanks for the update. That was 'news' yesterday.

By the way rugby pundit ,it's ........E X E T E R.

blanch152

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Clermont have released a statement distancing themselves from Paddy Jackson.
Exetet have released a statement distancing themselves from Stuart Olding.

Isn't it a terrible day for justice when men accused of rape and found not guilty end up losing their livelihoods?

skearnsot

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).

Well holding my hand up here - the “correct” or “PC” terms change so often it’s pretty hard to keep up! Especially when it comes to issues of race IMO

joe40

skearnsot wrote: »

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).

Well holding my hand up here - the “correct” or “PC” terms change so often it’s pretty hard to keep up! Especially when it comes to issues of race IMO

I have on occasion heard people ironically using the word coloured in an attempt not to cause offence. The word is offensive(due to history as laid out in the article referenced) and when this is pointed out reasonable people accept that and won't deliberately use a term that is offensive.

Just out of interest what other terms are you having trouble keeping up with. For example describing an Irish person as "a paddy" has been considered offensive for some time now.

DarTipp

blanch152 wrote: »

Isn't it a terrible day for justice when men accused of rape and found not guilty end up losing their livelihoods?

ya I couldn't agree more with you whatever about IRFU/ulster contracts being revoked the 2 lads paddy and stewart should be allowed continue their careers elsewhere

Mrsmum

blanch152 wrote: »

Isn't it a terrible day for justice when men accused of rape and found not guilty end up losing their livelihoods?

On reflection I think not enough people spoke of compromise and both sides did them no favours whatsoever by making it into a war. Even on here it was they have to go versus they were found not guilty end of story. Many even argued they did nothing at all wrong which of course was met with are you nuts, if people are thinking that then they definitely have to go. People were so polarised the only choices put out there in general were for them to be back playing in the next season or sacked. My own feeling is that a really strong message needed to be given that it was unacceptable and deplorable behaviour and a hefty punishment - fine, pay deduction, definite meaningful suspension, probation,perhaps a letter of apology to the girl ?

Fr Tod Umptious

DarTipp wrote: »

ya I couldn't agree more with you whatever about IRFU/ulster contracts being revoked the 2 lads paddy and stewart should be allowed continue their careers elsewhere

Nobody is preventing that from happening

Captain Obvious

DarTipp wrote: »

ya I couldn't agree more with you whatever about IRFU/ulster contracts being revoked the 2 lads paddy and stewart should be allowed continue their careers elsewhere

They are allowed. It's just that nobody wants them because of the things revealed about them in the trial. They are free from criminal repercussions for that night but they still have to live with the consequences of what they did. That's just life.

Wombatman

The Ulster Rugby Supporters' Club (URSC) has asked fans to consider five options as a response to the sackings of Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding.

The five choices given to fans were as follows:

•Pleased they are gone, they have brought disgrace to Ulster Rugby. See you on Saturday;

•Move on, we are a Supporters' Club and we support the club not individual players. See you on Saturday;

•Disappointed, but not surprised by the outcome. URSC to write to IRFU/Ulster expressing same;

•Appalled at the outcome - protest at the Glasgow game. See you outside on Saturday;

•Appalled at the outcome. Boycott Glasgow game. Won't see you on Saturday.

meeeeh

What they don't realize, is that the biggest favor they could do to Olding and Jackson is to let the story die. Longer this is in media longer clubs will be reluctant to talk to them.