freshpopcorn wrote: » Lots of teachers, Gardai, doctors, managers, etc would all be screwed if there phones got analysed.
Faugheen wrote: » That's what happens when messages get out into the open. Honestly don't know why the idea of those messages meaning to be private has anything to do with it. If I say something racist and/or misogynist, someone screengrabs it and sends it around, to the point where some clients and customers have heard about it. They might make my HR aware of it, and I won't have a leg to stand on. If Jackson and Olding lose their jobs, that's on them. I like the way people forget that a woman left their company bleeding and in hysterics too.
Fann Linn wrote: » Always safer to keep your messing off the work phone.
RabbleRouser2k wrote: » Yeah, the taxi drivers had many a story to tell around then-women toxically drunk, tbh. So much so they couldn't recall a single detail about the night before. There were cases where someone was spiked, but most were found to be just drinking. But there were cases where people got spiked-I know a former housemate who's drink was spiked. Her friends brought her home (She was at a club, or house party or something), but her eyes were rolling back into her head and so on. She drinks, yes-but that wasn't drunk, it was definitely a spiking. Her friends stayed in her room that night, as she was pretty distressed. And we all know the differences between someone being hammered, and someone who's been spiked. A friend told me of an incident where a co-worker had her drink spiked. Two non-Irish (not trying to paint anyone non-Irish as a villain, just telling how it happened) came over and started all the 'she's with us, we're taking her home' etc.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » That's what happens when messages get out into the open. Honestly don't know why the idea of those messages meaning to be private has anything to do with it. If I say something racist and/or misogynist, someone screengrabs it and sends it around, to the point where some clients and customers have heard about it. They might make my HR aware of it, and I won't have a leg to stand on. If Jackson and Olding lose their jobs, that's on them. I like the way people forget that a woman left their company bleeding and in hysterics too. At least you haved stopped sayingg that Jackson was aware of both the bleeding and the hysterics and that they were bragging about it. We are getting you somewhere nearer a truthful version of what actually happened.
Faugheen wrote: » I like the way people forget that a woman left their company bleeding and in hysterics too.
ChikiChiki wrote: » Your male friend is a twat and you should reevaluate that friendship. Also who the hell bothers with airy fairy religion anymore. For 35s and unders its almost extinct so them views are definitely not the norm.
facehugger99 wrote: » Never been a single documented case of anyone having their drink spiked in Ireland. It’s an urban legend.
Kidchameleon wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » I like the way people forget that a woman left their company bleeding and in hysterics too. So what, she is an adult.
Faugheen wrote: » Jackson was aware of the bleeding. He's admitted it himself. And I would like to think you will someday think it's not acceptable to perform a sex act on a person while they sleep, but for some reason I doubt it.
anthonyjmaher wrote: » These were private conversations. If HR was to see half of the private texts and private messages that people say about their colleagues/bosses, then everybody would be fired.
Strazdas wrote: » Intended to be private conversations. Nonetheless, they have come into the public domain, creating a very big problem for those who held the conversation.
Faugheen wrote: » ...and we have a winner! You win the 'way to miss the point' prize.
paw patrol wrote: » I dont know whats more worrying , the fact that private conversation are now public domain and people are being punished for what was in those private conversation or the fact that there are many cheering this fact and think such an invasion of privacy is a great thing. the mind boggles
ArthurDayne wrote: » The direction of the discussion towards the behaviour, attire or drinking habits of women is indicative of one of the major obstacles in getting society to a better place in addressing sexual violence. A sexual assault or rape is the result of a person (usually male) who, with a criminal and violent intent, subjects the victim (usually female) to the assault. It is the result of a perpetrator being willing to intentionally commit the crime. It is immaterial whether the victim is wearing a hijab or a bikini -- the sexual assault or rape is wholly the result of an inability and unwillingness on the man's part to stop himself from acting on a criminal intent to inflict these crimes on the female. It is sad therefore to see the discussion steer once again to the sideshow of a woman's conduct or attire rather than the more obvious problem of the sexual assailants themselves and all the mentalities and abnormalities which drive them. Indeed, this thread of many thousands of comments, and the entire furore surrounding the trial, has been thoroughly depressing. It is a national conversation where an 'ibelieveher' movement has taken a rather regrettable absolutist stance in simply assuming that 3 men are rapists because an accuser says they are. It is a conversation where crude and disrespectful Whatsapp messages were unfairly equated with sexual criminality. It is also a conversation where many people seem unable to understand the concept that even if a rape does not take place, this does not invariably mean that the sex or all the sexual acts were consensual, and that a woman who perceives to have been subjected to a non-consensual sex act is not necessarily 'lying' about her perception of having been raped.The media need to take a long look at themselves in how they have turned this trial into one which has made a mockery of the presumption of innocence, but has also made a mockery of the need to ensure that a Complainant's claims are considered and dealt with sensitively, rather than being enthusiastically transposed into a national soap opera. We need balance on the matter of sexual violence. We need an objective discussion which sets aside absolutist stances which conflate crude jokes with true misogyny or even propensity to commit sexual violence, and which also is more appreciative of the complexity of a rape claim -- in which even if no rape actually does occur, it does not mean that a complainant is lying that an act was non-consensual or that their perception that they were raped is not held honestly and in good faith. I fear that a significant section of our population, on all sides of the arguments and debates, is still some way off reaching a stage where a constructive and genuinely helpful conversation can be had. We continue to be subjected to daft placards, misguided protests and old-fashioned attitudes on how ladies should behave.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » Jackson was aware of the bleeding. He's admitted it himself. And I would like to think you will someday think it's not acceptable to perform a sex act on a person while they sleep, but for some reason I doubt it. You were flat out doing your best to get the story out there that they were bragging about it. Jackson thought it was menstrual blood. He did not know she was bleeding as she left. Get as bad a slant on the actual facts as you can. Nice work.
kumate_champ07 wrote: » I wonder how often they got up to the same type of behavior, is there a constant supply of women making themselves available? If this case never happened and their private lives stayed private, would anyone have a problem?
UsedToWait wrote: » While I agree with much of your analysis, the parts I've highlighted in bold are contradictory - if you accept that the complainant can perceive that the act was non-consensual, "even if no rape actually does occur", surely the corollary is true, and the accused can perceive that the act was consensual, and that there was no "criminal intent to inflict these crimes on the female"
Faugheen wrote: » No no Francie. See you read what you wanted to read, again. I said they were bragging about their exploits with a woman that had left their company bleeding and in hysterics. Never ever made reference to them bragging about leaving her in that state. I even said they probably didn't know, but it doesn't change the facts that she left their company in that state, and they were boasting about being top shaggers and spitroasting. You need to make sure you know what I said before you comment. Makes you look quite foolish.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » No no Francie. See you read what you wanted to read, again. I said they were bragging about their exploits with a woman that had left their company bleeding and in hysterics. Never ever made reference to them bragging about leaving her in that state. I even said they probably didn't know, but it doesn't change the facts that she left their company in that state, and they were boasting about being top shaggers and spitroasting. You need to make sure you know what I said before you comment. Makes you look quite foolish. What relevance was her 'state' then to them? The insinuation was that they had caused the bleeding and the hysterics and the jury plainly didn't agree.
Faugheen wrote: » How on Earth does the not guilty verdict of rape insinuate that the jury didn't think they caused the bleeding and hysterics? You are actually just making things up now.
Dick phelan wrote: » There seems to be a lack of basic respect in our society creeping in. I think it comes down to the very individualistic culture we have now, all about satisfying ourselves and others be damned.Firstly while the lads may be innocent of any crime no one can honestly say their messages were anything but crass and certainly showed them in a very bad light. Now of course we all make somewhat rude or crass comments at times but i can honestly say i would never describe a women the way those lads did and no i'm not looking for plaudits because i think most lads would be like minded. My view is that this is a case of girl who was treated pretty badly, lads were prob quite rough and therefore she felt **** in the cold of day. Having said that when you meet a lad drunk in a nightclub and go back to their house do you honestly expect they ask you back to play chess. I believe she consented to what happened but regretted it the next day after the lads were less then gentlemanly toward her. Perhaps if we all just treated each other and ourselves with more respects unfortunate situations like this wouldn't happen.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » How on Earth does the not guilty verdict of rape insinuate that the jury didn't think they caused the bleeding and hysterics? You are actually just making things up now. You think the jury thought they had caused the bleeding and hysterics and decided not guilty. Ok.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wd.vanillicon.com/v2/d3e92925f7bde702415f91ea088d4f7a.svg)
