Belfast rape trial - all 4 found not guilty Mod Note post one

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It doesn't matter Audrey, the mob has to have it's blood sacrifice.

Sadly that’s true.

I misread your post Francie sorry - thought you were giving that option rather than talking about other posters!

GreeBo wrote: »

So the complainant is also being disgusting in that case?

wtf are you trying to say?

Are you actually trying to argue against people calling out sexism?

I suspect Jackson has basically done a solid for the irfu here. Someone on that side is likely hoping the sponsors will accept it now since I can’t see Jackson, who seems understandably angry, moving much further on this. If the sponsors don’t come in line and insist on dropping them then a case to CAS would be a nightmare for the irfu

Hope he continues with his action against that eejit Aodhan too

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

He has nothing to be ashamed of.

He did nothing wrong or criminal and as for the WhatsApp messages only one of them was his and in any case they were part of a private conversation and not something he needs to apologize for.

If you think there is a single WhatsApp chat anywhere that doesn’t contain dodgy messages you’ve lived a very sheltered life.

You're right. It was only one message. He'll be back after suspension

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No idea what your point is there.




A 'slut' means a promiscuous woman - who exist, just like promiscuous men exist, commonly known as 'horndogs'. It does not mean ' all women are promiscuous'.

Even one of the rugby players admits the language is demeaning and wrong.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ashamed-paddy-jackson-apologises-for-degrading-messages-1.3452843

Seriously, stop trying to defend sexism. It's disgusting.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

He has nothing to be ashamed of.

He did nothing wrong or criminal and as for the WhatsApp messages only one of them was his and in any case they were part of a private conversation and not something he needs to apologize for.

If you think there is a single WhatsApp chat anywhere that doesn’t contain dodgy messages you’ve lived a very sheltered life.

Read his apology.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

What's the RFU got to do with it? Jackson isn't employed by them and he doesn't play in England. His employers are the IRFU. 2 different organisations. Though I shouldn't be surprised as a lot of the people protesting against the 4 innocent men don't even know what country the trial was in.

I hope both he and Olding do get back on the field for Ulster and that Jackson (I don't think Olding will) gets back in the Irish team. It would be a great redemption story. Especially if they were to go on and play a vital role in winning trophies like a European Cup, a Grand Slam or even the World Cup.
Could be made into a movie in a few years. #theysaidsorry #letthemplay

I made a typo and you jump on it to detract from my comment. Hope they don't play again, trying to save their careers is the only reason they are putting out these mealy mouthed apologies.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You may be ok with living in a society like that, but part of living in reality means accepting the fact that other people in the same society you live in have higher standards and expectations of public figures.

Ever since we've had the ability to record conversations, there has been the risk that those conversations will make it into the public domain. There are people in this thread speaking as though this is a relatively new phenomenon. It isn't, not by a long shot, and the release of those private conversations into the public domain has ended peoples careers.

The men involved were found not guilty of the crimes they were charged with, but it doesn't follow that they are immune from criticism for the attitudes and behaviours that there is sufficient evidence to suggest they deserve the criticism they're getting.

This idea of passing off their attitudes and behaviour as something that "most young men are like" or "most young men have conversations like that", that may well be their experience, but it isn't an experience that's shared by everyone, and I don't know that it actually is all that common in civilised society. Y'know how I can say I don't know? Because most young men don't actually behave like those men did, and so their private conversations don't become evidence against them in a trial where their private lives are investigated and laid bare to be judged in public.

I think a crucial point is being missed here. The point is not so much that they are being criticised for it, nor do I think people are really arguing that the Whatsapp messages were 'OK' -- the point, which has two branches, is that the messages were being perceived as (a) conclusive indication of sexual deviancy for the purposes of the trial and/or (b) conclusive indication that the guys are misogynists/debasers of women/the face of male entitlement and sexism.

So the argument is not one of whether it is OK saying stuff like this about people -- it is one of whether people necessarily deserve to be typecast in aeternum for private comments made in jest. To me it is immaterial whether they are made by people in the public eye or not. Expecting people in the public eye to never make crude comments is a futile expectation, and one which has never been really realistic. If we were to audit and spy on the conversations of every single person in the public eye then I venture there would not be many left in the public eye at all by the end of it!

And I do still think there is a certain level of naivety about the issue of lewdness among young men. Sure, most young men probably never experience group sex -- but then again most young men are not international rugby players who we can probably say with some confidence are more of a pull for the opposite sex than the average Irish male. That is not to say that the average single Irish guy wouldn't engage in group sex sessions if the opportunity presented itself. If I was attractive and charming enough to have a more exciting and promiscuous sex life I can't really say for certain what kind of scenarios I would find myself in -- and then refer back to with crude figurative language when recanting my exploits to my friends (male and female). Alas, I'm lucky to even get a response on Tinder. If you think that makes me some sort of misogynist-in-waiting then that is a choice you are entitled to make, but not one I am either obliged or willing to accept.

I've heard people make racist jokes, sectarian jokes, jokes about war, jokes about all kinds of things. It doesn't necessarily make them racists or sectarian bigots or people who revel in the death and destruction of war. Indeed, guys like Frankie Boyle seem to have made a career out of it in the public eye! I see your point about not wanting to live in a society where it is OK, but I'm also not so sure if the society you talk about is necessarily a more desirable one -- nor indeed realistic. Sure -- it's inappropriate to make inappropriate jokes -- everyone knows this. But I think we need to think a little more critically before we chuck labels at people gung-ho for comments they make in jest.

tritium wrote: »

Suing someone who calls you a rapist seems like a sensible course of action. Would you be ok with it if it was aimed at you?

Genuine question. Do you think if she went on trial now for a false rape claim against them and was found not guilty, does that mean they raped her?

Grayson wrote: »

Even one of the rugby players admits the language is demeaning and wrong.
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/ashamed-paddy-jackson-apologises-for-degrading-messages-1.3452843

Seriously, stop trying to defend sexism. It's disgusting.

Its called PR mate. All part of the rehabilitation. There will be classes/courses run by some professor/doctor in sociology or women studies or sexuality. He will probably have to do a few talks to young men/schoolboys about respecting women. I wouldn't be surprised if he started attending church with a couple of his more religious Ulster teammates and then he will be back on the field and this will all be forgotten.

Yeah_Right wrote: »

What's the RFU got to do with it? Jackson isn't employed by them and he doesn't play in England. His employers are the IRFU. 2 different organisations. Though I shouldn't be surprised as a lot of the people protesting against the 4 innocent men don't even know what country the trial was in.

I hope both he and Olding do get back on the field for Ulster and that Jackson (I don't think Olding will) gets back in the Irish team. It would be a great redemption story. Especially if they were to go on and play a vital role in winning trophies like a European Cup, a Grand Slam or even the World Cup.
Could be made into a movie in a few years. #theysaidsorry #letthemplay

I think you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you think Jackson or Olding are ever going to play for Ireland again.

zedhead wrote: »

Genuine question. Do you think if she went on trial now for a false rape claim against them and was found not guilty, does that mean they raped her?

We'd have to hear the evidence.
What is known is that the 4 were found not guilty after a trial.
Furthermore, there are doubts now whether that trial should have even gone ahead according to the PSNI.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is sexist about describing a woman who is, in somebody's opinion, sexually promiscuous as a slut? It is a slang term for somebody like that recognised by dictionaries as such.

You may not like the term, that doesn't make it sexist. Referring to 'all women as sluts' would of course be sexist and warrants sanction.

Gilroy did refer in that conversation to women plural as 'sluts', not just one woman.

tritium wrote: »

I suspect Jackson has basically done a solid for the irfu here. Someone on that side is likely hoping the sponsors will accept it now since I can’t see Jackson, who seems understandably angry, moving much further on this. If the sponsors don’t come in line and insist on dropping them then a case to CAS would be a nightmare for the irfu

Hope he continues with his action against that eejit Aodhan too

It will never get to a situation of it going to CAS. The IRFU can just suspend them until the end of their contract if they want to. All they have to do is keep paying them. PJ's contract is up in June next year.

He will be very stupid if he pursues anyone legally about this. All its doing is keeping his name in the spotlight.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is sexist about describing a woman who is, in somebody's opinion, sexually promiscuous as a slut? It is a slang term for somebody like that recognised by dictionaries as such.

You may not like the term, that doesn't make it sexist. Referring to 'all women as sluts' would of course be sexist and warrants sanction.

how do you quantify what makes someone a "slut" is there a number? afaik they had never met the complainant before so how would they have known how promiscuous she was or not?

Also if you think slut and horndog are the same thing you're dreaming. how many people do you know would be offended if you called them a horndog? how many would be offended if you called them a slut?