Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: » Hmm. You would say that though. I think both platforms have different extremes. Boards seems to be more right wing although I don’t think it was always that way.
Faugheen wrote: » Nobody can categorically say she is lying though, can they? So it does come down to opinion as to whether you think she lied or not. However, I'll say it again, you said that the court found she wasn't raped. Are you going to acknowledge that this is an untrue statement or are you going to keep ignoring it?
For Forks Sake wrote: » Also I notice #suemePaddy trending on twitter...... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
holyhead wrote: » If the court has decided the men were innocent, which as it stands they are, then they have had their "good name" unfairly smeared, based on the current judgment. I say current, because maybe the girl can pursue an appeal???
FrancieBrady wrote: » They mostly are annoyed that an allegation has not turned out to have any evidence to back it up.
ibkeane wrote: » Logic suggests she was lying to a court of law , its called perjury which is used to usurp the power of the courts, resulting in miscarriages of justice.
Rodin wrote: » And I for one am not saying she IS lying?! Dear god...i have stated it is a possibility. Which it is. The reading comprehension of some leaves a lot to be desired.
Zonda999 wrote: » I don't know but it really defines the reason I like reading Boards on stories like this and am appalled by Twitter. Boards seems to allow for considered thought provoking posts and seemingly intelligent discussion. Twitter is a shouting match of angry people looking to further usually fairly extreme opinions based on sweeping statements bundled with the going hashtag of the day. There's obviously different age groups on here discussing this as opposed to those tweeting about it under the popular hashtags, To be honest, I suspect the general IQ is a lot higher here.
Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: » Men are first and foremost out for sex. They find communication with women on a cerebral level difficult. .
Faugheen wrote: » However, I'll say it again, you said that the court found she wasn't raped. Are you going to acknowledge that this is an untrue statement or are you going to keep ignoring it?
holyhead wrote: » Because a court of law has told us the lads are innocent.
Faugheen wrote: » But you said the court found a rape didn't take place, didn't you? That's not a true statement to make.
foxyladyxx wrote: » No it did not. .The 11 jurors found insufficient evidence to convict, ,
doylefe wrote: » Innocent until proven guilty. Not guilty of the accusation of rape = innocent = didn't rape.
Church on Tuesday wrote: » Like I said before SOME lads do talk like this about women amongst their peer group, regardless of background. I've heard lads in college, educated if you will, come out with some fairly vile things about women. I've heard what you might call 'rough' lads do the same. And then I've heard some women on both sides of the spectrum say not particularly pleasant things about men. The whatsapp messages are vile. But its conversations that are being replicated amongst lads tonight as we speak. It's really nothing new. I always found it cringy to read/hear myself but it's a fact of life.
Silentcorner wrote: » For a start, the alleged victim should have access to her own legal team...that would be a huge shift believe it or not... The woman in any rape case is seen as a witness to the crime, and not the victim of the crime...that need to change... If you are victim of an assault....you are not asked how you reacted, to explain how you reacted, what were you wearing, how many drinks did you have, what type of underwear you were wearing...if you are the victim of a sexual assault...you are fair game...
wexie wrote: » Lads....cool down....lets wait and see if Foxylady comes back to change her typo from sufficient to insufficient?
Rodin wrote: » Not one of those 4 men were convicted of rape Therefore in the courts opinion, a rape did not take place. If it did, who's the rapist. Rape is a criminal offence requiring the two features of mens rea and an actus reus. No person there was convicted. Rape, in its legal sense (the only one) was deemed not to have happened.
steddyeddy wrote: » Yes some lads do but we all know that. That doesn't lesson the severity of the messages though.
Faugheen wrote: » Nope. Wrong. Not guilty = prosecution couldn't prove beyond reasonable doubt. She hasn't been found guilty of anything either, so does innocent until proven guilty not apply to her too?
jr86 wrote: » Have blane and Harrison been stripped of their international careers yet?
Faugheen wrote: » Right. I stab you on a night out. I'm brought to court and found not guilty. You know I did, the police know I did it, I know I did it, but the prosecution couldn't prove it. Does this man you weren't stabbed or a stabbing didn't take place? You have absolutely no idea what the verdict means, so you should step away and go back to your colouring book.
Mokuba wrote: » That is a funny one alright. The IRFU should investigate me too. Sure why not, if people want them to investigate two people who have literally nothing to do with them.
irishman86 wrote: » Wow, how many times has this been pointed out Not guilty = innocent
