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?
FrancieBrady wrote: » A 'mob' to me is typified by irrational and ill-informed outrage. Which does not typify those who rallied for black or Irish human rights and freedom. Exactly the type of irrational and ill-informed comment that has been illustrated in the last number of comments. The fact that most missed the fact that Jackson had already expressed regret for a distressed woman leaving his house and the complete inability to see that he has had to do it again to satisfy the still baying 'mob'.
FrancieBrady wrote: » A 'mob' to me is typified by irrational and ill-informed outrage. Which does not typify those who rallied for black or Irish human rights and freedom.
Exactly the type of irrational and ill-informed comment that has been illustrated in the last number of comments. The fact that most missed the fact that Jackson had already expressed regret for a distressed woman leaving his house and the complete inability to see that he has had to do it again to satisfy the still baying 'mob'.
When asked if he had known the alleged victim was upset leaving his house he said: "If I had seen she was upset I would have gone and checked on her. I didn't see her upset. "The last thing I want is a girl crying leaving my house. I would have freaked out. The last thing I ever want is anyone leaving my house upset. "I went to bed and had no idea she was upset."
Yeah_Right wrote: » I'm not on Twitter but I read that the "spokeswoman for women everywhere" Louise O'Neill stopped directly referring them as rapists in her tweets after his lawyer mentioned legal action. She now just hints at it or shares other people's tweets. She avoids a lawsuit but keeps her followers and therefore protects her income. A bit like the players apologise, do their rehab and get back to earning money on the field.
jm08 wrote: » Is this the apology? If not can you find it and repost it please.
freshpopcorn wrote: » They were drunken young men who did sexually acts that some mightn't like and didn't behave the best. I have texts in my phone from people who used homophobic language in the past but it doesn't make them raging gay bashers and I wouldn't show the text to their gay brother for example. If you were in a relationship with somebody for a few years and were engaged to be married and loved him For whatever reason you found an old group chat and their was crude words and talks of consensual sexual acts you didn't approve of from a drunken night out when he was younger before you ever met him. Would you call the whole thing off?
joe40 wrote: » So are you saying that I and others that hold a different opinion to you are "irrational and ill-informed" Just to be clear.
Augeo wrote: » Nice guys come last :pac:In all seriousness though lots of the rugby crowd reckon the lads did nothing wrong, boys will be boys etc.[/QUOTE] PJ disagrees with them.
cloudatlas wrote: » There was a guy earlier who said he called his wife a slut and so should he have to apologise?? No cos obviously they both find it kinky. Your friends have obviously agreed it's fine to call each other sluts as a joke. Therefore it's okay it's not derogatory or demeaning in those contexts because there is a subtext.
cloudatlas wrote: » The height of whataboutery, subtext matters so much that you can't derive meaning from projected conversations and examples. We have an actual example we know the context of it and we react accordingly but then the AH whataboutery patrol arrives with what if and a whole load of nonsense that we have no context for at all- how the hell is the poster supposed to respond to the little information and the imagined scenarios you have concocted.
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » If you opinion goes against that of the jury then yes. At very least ill-informed.
tritium wrote: » Of course not, no more than their acquittal means she lied. As many have said is very possible both sides are telling the truth from their perspective. However what happened fell short of the threshold to be considered rape. A genuine question for you in return. If someone is acquitted of a crime should someone be allowed with impunity to slander them in spite of their hem being innocent on the eyes of the law?
Yeah_Right wrote: » So its important to understand a group's dynamic and the context of their conversations. The history of how they interact with each other before judging a snapshot of one of their conversations. :cool:
joe40 wrote: » I have lost count of the number of times I have said I fully accept the jury decision. I would have hated to see them going to jail. The discussion for me has moved on
Mrsmum wrote: » PJ disagrees with them.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Yes. He expressed his regret for it happening.
"The last thing I want is a girl crying leaving my house. I would have freaked out. The last thing I ever want is anyone leaving my house upset.
freshpopcorn wrote: » Well I know if I was in a relationship with somebody for a good while and if I found out they did somebody when they were younger and stupid and they weren't like that now or it was just a one off. I believe I'd continue the relationship with them. I basically asked could she stay in a relationship with somebody that did something stupid when they were younger even tough it was something she despised.
ShowMeTheCash wrote: » I think you need to educate yourself. The "mob" is a term that has been used since rise and fall of the Roman empire. It makes referred to witch hunts, angry mobs fulled on emotion and little to no facts.... The mob is fickle! Social media has given birth to the SJW a new form of mob. Social justice is another term. The black of America you talk about above also succumbed to a form of social justice usually involving a rope and a tree... You historically are misrepresenting what the term "mob" means.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Should careers be ended? A jail of a type for a talented committed player with talent.
jm08 wrote: » That isn't the first cousin of an apology. I'm not surprised most people missed it.
cloudatlas wrote: » Well the answer there is very much 'it depends' because there is no information of what they did, how bad it was etc and what their history is or the circumstances there is literally nothing to work with.
Mrsmum wrote: » Would that be the same outrage that has people defending PJ's behaviour and the criticism of it when he himself says "The criticism of my behaviour is fully justified".
jm08 wrote: » Doesn't he have job offers from outside Ireland? No one has the right to a job in their own province. Plenty of players have had to move abroad when their province didn't take them on, even very talented ones.
freshpopcorn wrote: » The poster appeared to be disgusted with the group chat that took place and she could never imagine being in a relationship with somebody similar to this. My point was if she thought she found the man of her dreams and found out he had a similar chat when he was young and drunk would she call the whole thing off over one stupid drunken group chat.
joe40 wrote: » There is no "mob" that is just a silly term to describe a section of public opinion you disagree with. Every human rights from blacks in america to catholics in northern ireland was achieved by a "mob" that managed to influence public opinion. By all means make an argument, express your opinion but refering to people that hold a different opinion as a mob is just silly. I am not part of any mob. Funny how "mobs" only ever disagree with you. When you're on the same they're just right thinking people
cloudatlas wrote: » They weren't drunk it was in the morning they were sober.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I asked you a question and you have neatly sidestepped it.
upandcumming wrote: » He shouldn't apologise at all! It is just to satisfy a bunch of people like them 130 anonymous wankers who took out that ad today. All to deny them their livelihoods.
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://www.boards.ie/applications/dashboard/design/images/banned.png)
