torqtorq wrote: » Murray and Zebo have had no issue with sponsors. They make a video recording of themselves having a threesome - which finds its way onto the internet - but yet they are paragons of virtue with PR teams drip feeding softly softly press articles. These men have been found not guilty and should be treated as such.
C__MC wrote: » Social media at its best lately. There is a petation going about for the 4 lads never to play rugby for Ireland again. You couldn’t make it up.
GreeBo wrote: » Saying they got away with it is implying they are guilty. Saying that in public is not likely to be ignored.
hill16bhoy wrote: » Somebody who proposes that that the complainant "be grilled in court" for so called false allegations, which you are clearly implying, looks very stupid indeed. In fact the complainant would have a very good case for defamation against anybody alleging she made false allegations, when the jury didn't find that at all.
Sofiztikated wrote: » That you know of. Have you had a medical professional check your partner after every sexual encounter?
Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Right. It’s the use of words. Any “getting away with it” phraseology is suspect.
For Forks Sake wrote: » And stupid and all as O'Riordans tweet was, it was nowhere near the most defamatory thing I've seen this week regarding the case.
jimmynokia wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » If you don't allow the media or the public in court then how can it be determined that the defendant gets a fair trial? Absolute nonsense statement to make. You can put restrictions on what the media can report (naming complainants and defendants, for example) but to say court sittings should be behind closed doors completely is absolutely preposterous. You are blind then, its because of social media and journalists the situatition is the way it is the lads where named but the girl was not, to stop the current situation going on and happening again is ban the press until the verdict is read out if you did not realise the sitation is between A and B not the public to decide thats what the jury is there for i think you need to take a reality check...
Faugheen wrote: » If you don't allow the media or the public in court then how can it be determined that the defendant gets a fair trial? Absolute nonsense statement to make. You can put restrictions on what the media can report (naming complainants and defendants, for example) but to say court sittings should be behind closed doors completely is absolutely preposterous.
_Dara_ wrote: » Is social media making people dumb or what? I feel like this is basic stuff. Don’t defame someone. I remember as a child, you had to be SO careful making stealing accusations. When did people forget this?
Canterelle wrote: » It’s not as simple as that. It’s not a protest purely against the verdict but about the treatment of the complainant and rape victims who bring a case to court. Instead you’re just saying all these people are biased irrational eejits. Another poster thinks they just need a good night in coppers. And of course try to diminish the men who want to join the protest. In the clip they clearly say why they are there. They didn’t say the men were guilty of rape. What was your “humour” about?
professore wrote: » No but my partner would not be shy about telling me if I caused any lacerations or bleeding. I'm not married to a shrinking violet by any stretch of the imagination. And we're down to this level now that I would have sex with my partner with no concern for her welfare.
professore wrote: » Heres Johnny wrote: » People of ireland making a bit of a tit of themselves over this with their stupid protests and petitions going around social media. Stop all 4 playing for Ireland, seriously? Remove Rory Best as captain? Cop on. The Rory Best thing is ridiculous. If a good friend of mine was accused of rape, and I genuinely believed he didn't do it, do I not have the right to provide a character witness and attend his trial? Absolutely ridiculous. Preventing them playing for Ireland - that's up to the team. They are innocent in the eyes of the law, so I can't see a good reason not to play any of them. But I suspect they will get a lot of boos.
Heres Johnny wrote: » People of ireland making a bit of a tit of themselves over this with their stupid protests and petitions going around social media. Stop all 4 playing for Ireland, seriously? Remove Rory Best as captain? Cop on.
freshpopcorn wrote: » I see that they are more marches organised for Tomorrow. One of my facebook friends is attending. One thing I did notice is all the men that are attending are gay.Is there any reason for this?
hill16bhoy wrote: » I think you'll find I'm not wrong. If somebody who has previously had a seat loses it, but then regains it, that is re-election. Jackson will have a very hard time trying to prove anything defamatory against O'Riordain. The main people who have been criticised in the tweet are in fact the jury, not Jackson. Calling somebody smug, entitled and middle class is not a defamation. O'Riordain will attract widespread support if he has to defend himself. The more Jackson digs in and pursues spurious legal actions, the more he'll set himself up as public enemy number one. Sooner or later, he'll have to play a rugby match on this island, either for Ulster or for an English or French team. Let's just say the atmosphere at that match, when it comes, is unlikely to be pleasant for him, particularly if he still pursuing spurious legal actions, and if he keeps digging in, he shouldn't expect much silence if he has to take a place kick.
Faugheen wrote: » That's an issue with British and Northern Irish law, not with the court. I've already said not naming both the complainant and defendant is an avenue that should be explored like it is here. Answer my question, if there's nobody in the room who can hold the court accountable, how can anyone determine if the defendant gets a fair trial? The court could essentially do whatever it wanted because the jury wouldn't be allowed to talk about it and there would be nobody there to hold the court accountable. What if the defendant said he didn't get a fair trial? What if the judge decided to dismiss any evidence the defence had for the simple reason that the person they perceive to be the bad guy gets put away? Who would be in the room that can prove that? Not having 'public prosecution' opens the doors for corruption within the legal system. I think it is you that is completely blind to the stupid idea you've suggested.
RebelButtMunch wrote: » How do you know that all the men attending are gay?
Uncharted wrote: » Pffft.....yeah.... because every rugby match iv attended,iv sat shoulder to shoulder with purple haired,angry at the planet ,feminazi,men- hating lynchmobs. Get a grip.
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » AOR didn't say they got away with it. He said he believed the woman but that the boys won.
super_furry wrote: » Jackson would be well advised to keep his head down and stay quiet. Threatening politicians with spurious court cases would do little other than to keep the words Paddy Jackson, court and rape in the headlines.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » But it is that simple - you’re using this case as an example of how all rape cases should not be dealt with even nothing that occurred is actually wrong and you’re only protesting in the first place because you don’t like the verdict. Dress it up all you like but this case is what it’s really all about. What do you want from all this exactly? For every man accused of rape to be locked up with no questions asked? For them to be denied fair tri? For all accusers to be believed without question?
freshpopcorn wrote: » In a relationship with another men/seeking men/etc. It's not rocket science.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w5.vanillicon.com/v2/57b8d4916f172b09117f20311640649e.svg)
