Dick phelan wrote: » Find it amazing people think Jackson should apologize, apologize for what? In his mind he has done nothing wrong and ended up being accused of rape cost him a fortune plus now a bunch of idiots including elected officials are still calling him a rapist despite being found not guilty. His career in Ireland is probably over and not a hope we see him in an Ireland shirt again imo. While he deals with a bunch of idiots protesting about a trial in a different jurisdiction in which he was found no guilty, his Ireland team mates are celebrating a Grand Slam. Honestly how the hell can you expect him to offer any kind of "sorry" under such circumstances.
Mrsmum wrote: » If that is the case and you are the one suggesting all men as in anyone's male relations talk like that about women, why the outrage when one young woman holds up a Men r Trash placard. Would she not be right if what you are saying is true. And what sort of pathetic creatures are you that you need to diss the person you were intimate with so you can impress your mates. Grow up.
iamwhoiam wrote: » Exactly what we said here today over lunch with different age groups . We also may not like or approve of the behaviour in that house but does not make it wrong . Its not for me to judge as I was not on the jury so I have to accept their judgment and see the men as not guilty of rape . I feel sad for everyone involved that night . They have all paid a huge price for wrong choices and lack of judgment .
Outlaw Pete wrote: » Ah come on.... As for the 'hurt caused' that could have been referencing how they spoke of her in the text messages.
Faugheen wrote: » Because he and his teammate left a woman bloodied and hysterical That we know for a fact. Olding acknowledged it and apologised. Jackson could do with saving his reputation somewhat and doing the same
Uncharted wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » Because he and his teammate left a woman bloodied and hysterical That we know for a fact. Olding acknowledged it and apologised. Jackson could do with saving his reputation somewhat and doing the same Mind your own business.
Faugheen wrote: » That's a very constructive argument you have made there. If the conversation was between two 7 year olds. Run along now, the adults are talking.
RuMan wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » Because he and his teammate left a woman bloodied and hysterical That we know for a fact. Olding acknowledged it and apologised. Jackson could do with saving his reputation somewhat and doing the same Jackson was asleep my friend and she wasnt hysterical leaving his room. Disapointing you have such contempt for due process. Will she apologise?
Silentcorner wrote: » What's mad is, it is the likes of you and me who are being described as hysterical and deluded!!!
irishman86 wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » That's a very constructive argument you have made there. If the conversation was between two 7 year olds. Run along now, the adults are talking. Patronise someone The sign of a child speaking Where exactly is the adult as its not you
Uncharted wrote: » Such intellect. I'm in awe. You probably expect a shocked angry retort. Pffft. Not happening. Try harder.
RuMan wrote: » Jackson was asleep my friend and she wasnt hysterical leaving his room. Disapointing you have such contempt for due process. Will she apologise?
FrancieBrady wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » Because he and his teammate left a woman bloodied and hysterical That we know for a fact. Olding acknowledged it and apologised. Jackson could do with saving his reputation somewhat and doing the same Just like none of us know what actually happened in the room, you have no idea if Jackson apologised or made contact with her or not. You seem very intent to further discredit the man, and it really isn't that hard to see why. Like the #Ibelieveher mob you cannot accept the verdict.
Faugheen wrote: » If the poster isn't going to say anything constructive that adds to the conversation, and instead tells me to mind my own business for simply giving my opinion on a forum, then I will treat them as the child they want to be portrayed as. Patronising? Condescending? Of course, and I've made no secret of that. Engage constructively and you will get a constructive response.
Silentcorner wrote: » Well, for a start she will be guided through what is a very impersonal experience, never underestimate how tough a courtroom appearance can be. In this case, if she had her own barrister, she would have more control over her narrative. For instance, she gave accounts to both the Rape Crisis Centre and the Police, and there were inaccuracies between them, which were explained but not in huge detail, her defence barrister should be afforded a separate opportunity to go through those inaccuracies, because, they are were attacked by the other barristers.
Silentcorner wrote: » Also, in the origional account of her version that she gave to police, there were a few things that corroborated her version of events. 1 She described freezing from the start of the incident, she describes what she did with Stuart Olding, she did this before she remembered that a witness had entered the room, Dara Florence, by the time she remembered Dara Florence, the two lads had given their statement denying having any sex at all with the young woman, Dara Florence ended up confirming the description of events that she gave. But it got lost in the whole, was it consensual sex argument. 2 The fact that she went to the police before she remembered Dara Florence obliterates the theory that she lied because she was afraid of her pictures getting onto social media. 3 She left the room on three occasions, the first time when she kissed Jackson, she had the presence of mind to bring her bag upstairs with her, but she left the room without it, which a good barrister could indicate that she left the room as quick as she could, whatever happened. 4 She returned to the party, she felt the mood had changed, she decided to leave, she was seen (in a picture) putting on her shoes, which would indicate that she was leaving, she could not have known that that picture existed, but it did. 5 The taxi driver describes vividly how upset she was, but again not much was made of it, taxi drivers are always dropping drunk/emotional people home, her own barrister could have spent more time ascertaining how upset she was in comparison to other passengers, again, this was fairly glossed over. Now, that is just based on what we are aware of, there are still, strangely enough, reporting restrictions on this case, so we have no idea what else the jury heard...but that the above are just some ways her own team could help her.
irishman86 wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » If the poster isn't going to say anything constructive that adds to the conversation, and instead tells me to mind my own business for simply giving my opinion on a forum, then I will treat them as the child they want to be portrayed as. Patronising? Condescending? Of course, and I've made no secret of that. Engage constructively and you will get a constructive response. Thats funny as all youve shown is staying power Not the ability to respond in a constructive way Youve been on the same rambling point for well forever Paddy has nothing to apologise for
Dick phelan wrote: » People might not agree but personally I've always felt it a bit thick to believe that someone you meet drunk in a nightclub for the first time and go home with is going to treat you with much respect. Now let me be clear people have a right to do whatever without being judged but at the same time nobody is going to treat someone they don't know and who they only plan to see for one night with a high level of respect?
Faugheen wrote: » Should have told Olding not to so, as it doesn't shed Jackson in a good light that Olding apologised for the hurt and upset he caused to the complainant and Jackson seems to think it was grand.
Faugheen wrote: » I accept the verdict, as I have said numerous times. Tell me what part of my post is wrong? The laceration? The hysterics? Or the apology by Olding for causing upset to her?
freshpopcorn wrote: » Funnily enough my friend and I used bring back women from clubs and give them tea and cake and send them on their merry way. It didn't go down well.
hynesie08 wrote: » Why would she? She wasn't on trial.
Faugheen wrote: » Also, I'll remind you, Jackson hasn't apologised to the complainant like Olding has. That will be one of the first things they'll ask him in that review.
