Conor McGregor Megathread *Mod Warning in OP Updated 20th April*

RoryMac

A solicitors wet dream, an idiot with money.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122876699#Comment_122876699

Stop insulting idiots 🤪

Bass Reeves

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122876656#Comment_122876656

Ah jayus he gave physical descriptions on the witness stand using his hands holding her this way and that way, he described it as athletic, FFS.

We used to go into meetings years ago and the advice was " never ask a question unless you know the answer…..if you know the answer you do not need to ask the questions".

In other words a shut mouth catches no flies.

Conor problem was he was a wond up toy after sitting in court over a week. He taught he was a model arriving in a suit a size too small. After the first day his cap was in his hand. Scum with TMM. He was never going to listen to advice or do what he was advised

ted1

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122876663#Comment_122876663

she wasn’t looking for millions , she wanted the DPP to bring a case. They didn’t so she did.

I hope you don’t have a mother , sister, wife or daughter.

mickdw

I see some clips of Mcgregor partying from god knows when but I genuinely thought it was someone doing a skit. The walk, the clothes, the antics..… not to mention the gang of hanger ons. Scanger central.

I'd say his monthly outgoing is crazy at this stage. It's surprising how quickly the money can run out if the income slows down but the lifestyle doesn't.

Donald Trump

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122876311#Comment_122876311

No. You cannot be sued for damages for what amounts to simply losing a case you brought.

Homelander

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122876738#Comment_122876738

On the contrary McGregor has made incredibly smart investments. He's not going to run out of money anytime soon realistically.

He's probably worth several hundred million. Nice clothes and non-stop partying won't dent that when he's relatively savy with investments and earnings.

He might be a scumbag and clearly McGregor today bares almost zero resemblence to McGregor of yesteryear but he does seemed to have made consistently smart investments in the main.

God knows he'll probably end up fighting Jake Paul or Nate Diaz again and the whole rapist thing will actually fuel the interest and trash-talk rather than dent it. Sad reflection of the times, but it is what it is.

anndub

Some of the posters here must have time travelled from the 1940s. "Sure everyone knows McGregor is a bit scumbaggy so she knew she was putting herself in danger".

I really can't believe this needs to be said but all and every woman, no matter who they are, how they speak, what they wear or how much they've had to drink SHOULD be able to go where they wish without risking assault. You know, just like men can. Bizarre mindset. Because you know the onus should have been on the woman to be hyper vigilante to potential rape at all times, not on the man to have some moral compass

nullzero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877013#Comment_122877013

The onus is on both parties.

So much of our lives are spent mitigating against risk. You get into your car, the first thing you do is put your seat belt on, the car has multiple airbags, you might never be in an accident yet you understand the rationale behind the requirements.

You SHOULD be able to walk around Dublin City centre without encountering a drug addict trying to mug you, but you exercise caution and keep your belongings safely in your pockets nonetheless.

Pointing out the obvious doesn't excuse the actions of the perpetrator, it just acknowledges that we all need to exercise caution in everything we do at all times regardless of how safe we SHOULD be.

anndub

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877086#Comment_122877086

Nonsense, you get into a car and someone rear ends you there are automatically at fault. They can't come along and say "well if you hadn't braked there I wouldn't have hit you so you're equally to blame"

You walk around Dublin city and get mugged by a junkie there junkie has committed a crime. The law doesn't say "well it's your own fault for bringing your mobile phone. Everyone knows the city centre has loads of junkies"

This is very clear victim blaming. The law does not care for sliding door type judgements. The law, rightly so, only cares about right and wrong.

horse7

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122871012#Comment_122871012

But what if there is an appeal

Deeec

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877013#Comment_122877013

I agree with the point you are making. McGregor absolutely got what he deserves. Nikita should not have had to go through the whole ordeal. BUT going to a hotel room with a man she just met was really stupid. What did she think he wanted to do in that hotel room?

Im female by the way and I will be teaching my daughters not to put themselves in places or situations where assualts attacks could happen. That's the reality of how we need to stay safe. There were always and will always be bad people out there

Mod: Warned for victim blaming

...Ghost...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122872073#Comment_122872073

I heard that too. I'm sure McGregor is standing over the legal fees for Lawrence, but the loser of the case (Hand lost her case against Lawrence) should be paying that portion of the legal fees. If the legal system works as it's supposed to, then his fees will be paid by her. They must be substantial.

walshb

Makachev Islam isn’t holding back on Twitter

Oscar_Madison

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877013#Comment_122877013

It’s eye opening to think that in 2024 such comments are still made- i thought “she was asking for it” sort of attitude was confined firmly to the history books - obviously not

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877184#Comment_122877184

well, it absolutely seems to be the way with some. The attitude is: she had some sexual intimacy with McGregor, and willingly went to a hotel suite.. so, that means she then has to have consented to whatever else McGregor wanted..

magicbastarder

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877180#Comment_122877180

Was it two separate cases, or one case against both?

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877180#Comment_122877180

huh? You realize she denied his claim and her team specifically argued that he lied about having a sexual encounter with her.

The only reason he was there was because he made the claim.

She then counters it with “if we had sex” it was not consensual. She did not lose.

The jury did not believe his lie (albeit not specifically saying this). So they could not find him not guilty of a crime that did not happen. She pays nothing to him.

he cannot prove they had consensual sex!!!!

...Ghost...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877193#Comment_122877193

Two separate cases. A single trial. My understanding is that each is treated as a separate entity. Win against one entity and you get compensated. Lose against a separate entity and you are liable for their costs. So, in this circumstance, McGregor pays for losing to Hand and then Hand is Liable for Lawrences costs even if McGregor has already paid them upfront.

magicbastarder

Hmm. A canny move by McGregor's legal team so?

...Ghost...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877200#Comment_122877200

It doesn't matter what she countered with. She put in a claim against him for sexual assault, rather than just saying he is lying and that it didn't happen, or bringing a separate claim for defaming her. She lost her claim against Lawrence.

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877214#Comment_122877214

She will not be paying his costs. She did not lose against him.

Why would her team argue that the sexual encounter was a lie? They argued it because they and her believed it a lie.

The jury’s verdict seems to cement her position and her team’s position.

her “having” to bring a claim against him due to him lying about a sexual encounter between them (her team and her believe this), is why he was there.

Maybe the jury will give specific reasons why he was not found liable. And if they say it’s because they believe his claim was a lie, then I cannot see how she pays his costs

nullzero

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877150#Comment_122877150

Sorry but that's nonsense.

Risks exist, we all need to employ caution to mitigate against risk, that's part of being an adult.

We're creating a society where we're more concerned about offending people than arming them with knowledge that could keep them safe.

The law being on your side after being the victim of a crime is cold comfort when you could have avoided the situation to begin with.

...Ghost...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877211#Comment_122877211

Well, they were just defending Lawrence as instructed. Fortunate or unfortunate for him to be a friend of McGregor, I wouldn't envy the man. One would imagine it being a very unpleasant experience to be accused of such a crime. It could be true that Lawrence never had sex with Hand. I personally don't believe anyone could be dumb/loyal enough to make such a false claim without fear of life.

Will be interesting to see what happens.

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877226#Comment_122877226

there was no physical evidence he had sex with her. He was also found out about how many condoms he had/used that day.

He also specifically described it as we had “soft” sex; he also said he rejected her 14-15 times (yeh right), before finally giving in. It stinks of a concocted lie. And the jury very likely thought the same.

Why would there be a fear of life for Lawrence for making this claim?

...Ghost...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877223#Comment_122877223

From the Irish Examiner

"Ms Hand, who is also known as Nikita Ní Laimhín, lost her case against another man, James Lawrence, who she accused of assaulting her by allegedly having sex without her consent at the same hotel."

Hand did not have to bring a sexual assault case against Lawrence. She and her legal team chose to. It was more likely than not that the same verdict would be found against both men, win or lose.

Will be interesting to see the wording of it.

walshb

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877253#Comment_122877253

yes, I get this. Intersting. They may not have had to bring a case, but they did.

If a man makes a claim he had sex with you and you believe he did not, and you believe that “if” it did actually happen, it had to be rape..damn right you should pursue this man….

Now, add in that to this case, where you believe said man is inventing this claim to try get his buddy off a rape claim, and absolutely you would counter it and bring a claim

The whole same verdict against both men is off. Her team argued that his claim was a lie. That’s not an argument seeking to get a jury to find Lawrence liable. Maybe it was their strategy. Get McGregor! He was the man who Ms Hand said raped her.

...Ghost...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877241#Comment_122877241

No physical evidence Lawrence had sex with Hand. Yet Hand still brought case against Lawrence and lost that case.

What he said and she said in proceedings is irrelevant after the outcome, which is that she lost her claim against him. Her reasons behind it are also irrelevant to the outcome. She won against McGregor and lost against Lawrence. Both separate claims made by her, whether or not she believed them.

I didn't say Lawrence had fear. I suggested that would be one of the only things that would make someone come forward to say they had sex with someone who was bringing a rape claim against someone else.

...Ghost...

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/122877273#Comment_122877273

If I was Hand and was being honest with myself, and I knew Lawrence did not have sex with me AND I suspected this was just a ploy to discredit my claim against McGregor, I would not bring a claim against Lawrence for sexual assault. I would bring one for defamation, or none at all, just calling his story BS.

However, I suspect Hand and legal team played the cards where if one is to be found guilty, then both will, so go all in. I saw no commentary anywhere suggesting two different verdicts might be a possibility. That's just my black and white opinion.

walshb

well, only clear way to clear up is that the jury give reasons for verdicts: A: not liable because we believe they had consensual sex or B: not liable because we believe no sexual encounter took place and we believe Lawrence lied.