_Dara_ wrote: » Oh my god, my sister has a status with the hashtags #IBelieveHer and #TogetherForYes. As a passionate repealer, I'm annoyed at her and others for conflating the two issues. Sis said the female jurors agreed only because a unanimous decision was needed. How would she know that? Very irrational stuff. We used to agree on a lot of things but have diverged quite sharply in recent years.
Mr.H wrote: » Listen I agree that they are tools. I am just saying that while they are tools, they dont deserve to be ridiculed for it.
Mr.H wrote: » But I am just saying that I know some girls wont went nuts for Fifty shades and said some choice things about what they would let Jamie Doran do to them. Dies that make them scum?
Mr.H wrote: » Listen I agree that they are tools. I am just saying that while they are tools, they dont deserve to be ridiculed for it.!!
Mahony0509 wrote: » Just had a look at Twitter there. The amount of women who think this happened in the Irish justice system is mad. The case happened in Northern Ireland ffs.
Jimbob1977 wrote: » The plaintiff's female friend damaged the Prosecution's case from the early days. Stuck her head into the bedroom, but didn't see anything illegal. If a female friend doesn't back you up, it's going to be a tough job to get a conviction.
PokeHerKing wrote: » Genuinely struggling to understand how anyone could feel sorry for her IF they thought she was lying.
meeeeh wrote: » I'm not objecting that. But I also think some people can show complete disrespect to others with their attitude. It's not illegal, they are not breaking the law but I can still feel they are the type of people I would not want spend time with.
razorblunt wrote: » Sure the thread title alone says "4 Ulster Rugby Players". Shows that the trial was followed with interest by the OP.
Leonidas Important Blouse wrote: » It can be legal and still reprehensible. I would certainly find it hard to respect anyone who behaved like these guys did.
garbo speaks wrote: » Has Louise O'Neill exploded yet?
Samuel T. Cogley wrote: » I simply don't believe you're that naïve. If it came out that a High Court Judge who dealt with Civil cases only was an ex porn-star or indeed a Secondary School maths teacher that person would rightly be in serious trouble professionally. It's entirely correct though that you or I should be able to engage in anything we want, although perhaps not together. :pac:
_Whimsical_ wrote: » That was indeed the case, that was the evidence presented to the court, that was his police interview. As for him being the sort of person who brags of having sex with someone that didnt happen to the police investigating the rape of that person, well it beggars believe. He'd surely be in jail for admitting to carrying out 9/11 or the great train robbery by now. That's just beyond the bounds of all believability.
Augeo wrote: » Well rape is a very difficult thing to prove in a court of law, that's more or less common knowledge. But applying your logic, there's no proof the 3 some was consensual either.
suicide_circus wrote: » While spit roast is a crass and juvenile way of describing that particular act, I don't think there is any other way to describe it
Leonidas Important Blouse wrote: » I think there are general unspoken standards about what's okay or not okay. And I really do believe that most people would be horrified to know that their son or brother was behaving like these guys. Yes, there will be some who will take a 'lads being lads' attitude, but I don't think they're in the majority.
NomadicGray wrote: » You could call it 'Chunnel Boring'
kaymin wrote: » Actually two of the highest profile Irish rugby stars had a gangbang with a (willing) girl. It was widely reported at the time and seemngly hasn't affected their reputation or standing in the public eye in the slightest. My understanding is the girl ended up going to the UK afterwards.
Bunny12345 wrote: » I honestly feel like I've lost a few brain cells after reading the hashtag on Twitter
garbo speaks wrote: » Or doing the 'sydney harbour bridge'