FrancieBrady wrote: » No I don't but what business would it be of yours? Are people entitled to their own opinions or not?
cloudatlas wrote: » Your defence of these lads and their toxic laddish behaviour suggests you agree fully agree with their messages. The fact that you are distancing yourself from their words now is funny either you think it's okay to say those things or you don't, stop hiding behind freedom of speech rubbish, either you agree with it or not.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I neither agree or disagree, it is none of my business what they talk about in private. Do I think some women fit the meaning of the word 'slut', or it's more sedate meaning - promiscuous behaviour? Yes, I do and I am also mature enough to know that not all women are like that as all men are not horndogs. You are clearly gone over the edge in to thought policing.
goz83 wrote: » Clearly I was using absolute figures to provide more clarity to the percentages, which vary by jurisdiction. Thanks for clarifying that you believe that 5% of something = rare. If 5% of people driving on our roads were involved in a serious RTA every year, I wonder how many people would consider it rare. I am curious what percentage something must be to you before it is no longer rare. I think less than 1% is rare
the_pen_turner wrote: » i would consider 1 in 20 to be very common. iv got 19 male cousins so that means that statistically one of is is going ot be false accused of rape
cloudatlas wrote: » I'm not afraid to give my opinion, that much is clear, you obviously do have an opinion on it that much is clear but are too scared to say it plainly so have attempted to fudge it. It hasn't been very successful. We aren't talking generally here we have a specific example so it's quite simple to say either you agree or disagree but you hide behind generalizations even though this is a specific question.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Do I have a problem with the use of the word 'slut', no I don't for the reason outlined.
cloudatlas wrote: » Yep there it is, women who enjoy sex and have multiple partners sluts men who do legends. And then there is Tretorn who suggests that he is waiting for a woman who wants only him so he can procreate with her. Lust is incompatible with innocence kind of stuff that just smacks of catholicism. Archaic, sex shamey out of date.
FrancieBrady wrote: » No, men who do are horndogs. Both sexes can behave the same. Equality. And good luck to them. Sex lives of others are no business of mine.
the_pen_turner wrote: » i would consider 1 in 20 to be very common. iv got 19 male cousins so that means that statistically one of is is going ot be false accused of rape 1 in 2000 would be rare
carolmon wrote: » why the different names for the genders if the actions and judgements are the same? I mean if somebody has other traits that we pass judgement on we don't need to divide them on gender lines do we? I mean we call both men and women liars/ lazy/ mean etc why the dual naming in the area of sexuality? does it have anything to do with double standards around sexual behaviour do you think?
cloudatlas wrote: » 'horn dogs' are you american? Also you have given your opinion so it appears it is your business, kinda hypocritical if you ask me. There was no negative connotation when you spoke about guys only girls but now you are towing the equality line here.
jm08 wrote: » Tiger lost sponsorship of Accenture, AT&T, Gatorate, General Motors. Gillette and Tag Heuer dropped advertising campaigns that featured him. Golf Digest dropped his column. Nike didn't drop him, but they reduced his sponsorship deal. The companies don't care what rugby fans think. They are concerned what their existing and potential customers think. From the poll here, 20% don't agree with the verdict (and another 16% are not sure). No company can afford to annoy 36% of their customer base. Its not as if Ulster is pulling up trees performance wise either.
RuMan wrote: » Rugby attracts rich people.
RuMan wrote: » jm08 wrote: » Tiger lost sponsorship of Accenture, AT&T, Gatorate, General Motors. Gillette and Tag Heuer dropped advertising campaigns that featured him. Golf Digest dropped his column. Nike didn't drop him, but they reduced his sponsorship deal. The companies don't care what rugby fans think. They are concerned what their existing and potential customers think. From the poll here, 20% don't agree with the verdict (and another 16% are not sure). No company can afford to annoy 36% of their customer base. Its not as if Ulster is pulling up trees performance wise either. They have a far higher level of support in Ulster and higher again amongst rugby fans.
One eyed Jack wrote: » Are you sure you're not mixing this case up with another case? The CPS are the Crown Prosecution Service, the public prosecution service for England and Wales; the PPS are the Public Prosecution service, the public prosecution service in Northern Ireland, and according to the senior investigating officer in this case -The senior investigating officer in the case, Det Ch Insp Zoe McKee, said she had spoken to the complainant following the verdicts: "Understandably, she is upset and disappointed with the outcome." She said the case was "thoroughly and robustly investigated. We pursued all lines of investigative inquiry, we brought all of the evidence together, we worked in close collaboration with the Public Prosecution Service from the start". Source: BBC News And in my previous post I presented you with a statement from the assistant director of the PPS's serious crime unit, who stated that -In a statement, Marianne O'Kane, assistant director of the PPS's serious crime unit, said: "The evidence received in this case was subjected to a very thorough and careful examination by a team of experienced lawyers including senior counsel, before we concluded that the test for prosecution was met, in line with our code for prosecutors. "This meant that there was both sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction and it was in the public interest to prosecute. "This case was properly brought before the courts and overcame a number of legal challenges. It was ultimately right that the matter was placed before a jury to make their determination." Source: BBC News Now I'm not going to claim you're hysterical, but so far you haven't just presented insufficient evidence to support your claims, you've actually presented none. As for the part of your post I highlighted in bold there, one does not necessarily lead to the other. Evidence was presented by both sides, and examined by both sides, the prosecution and the defence, and it was determined by a jury that the men could not be found guilty of the crimes of which they were accused. Nowhere in any report is it suggested exactly why the jury came to the conclusion they did, because that would be a breach of their judicial responsibility, and the reporting restrictions imposed by the judge on the media, so your claims as to why the jury delivered the verdict that they did simply can't be supported, as you conclusively have no evidence for that claim. I said from the very beginning of my first post in this thread that this case shouldn't be seen as setting a precedent for any other cases of alleged rape, and yet here you are suggesting that you will look at every case of an alleged rape and thinking it is another fanciful tale, therefore providing proof of what I said already which is also true - that this case won't have made anyone believe anything contrary to what they believed already. You're stating that you will be prejudiced to believe that in future cases where you haven't even heard the evidence, you will already believe that it is yet another fanciful tale. You're demonstrating exactly the biggest issue in jury trials concerning cases of all allegations of rape and sexual assault, and that is jury bias, the biases of members of the jury, the idea that they aren't basing their deliberations on the basis of the evidence presented at trial, but rather they are basing their deliberations on what they previously believed about cases involving allegations of rape and sexual assault, before they were ever called to be members of the jury in any particular case. I don't believe you. I have no reason to believe what you're saying is true because all the evidence I've seen so far in just your posts in this thread alone suggests that the complete opposite is actually more credible than your claims to the contrary. I'm not going to present all of your posts in this thread as evidence, as that would make this post much longer than it already is. I'm also not going to do it as I said myself early on in this thread that I'm incredibly forgiving when someone makes an argument that is so utterly stupid it goes beyond reasonable, and that's exactly why I let your earlier posts slide - no point in entertaining ridiculous arguments just for the sake of argument. The cost of any investigation is borne by the State, and the cost of any prosecution is borne by the State, so I don't understand why you feel the need to make that point as though a witness for the State should have be burdened with whatever costs were incurred by the State pursuing a case after an investigation had been carried out by agents of the State? A witness for the State doesn't incur any expenses so what legal fees should they have to pay exactly? As you've previously pointed out yourself, the defence have the right to employ the best legal minds they can afford, a right which is entirely exercised at their discretion as to how much expenses they incur, so of course they are entirely responsible for any expenses incurred on their behalf in their defence. Why you imagine a defendant should have their legal fees paid by the State when they have the means to do so themselves is quite frankly beyond me as it seems entirely unreasonable. It's not as though defendants are excluded from applying to the Courts for representation via the mechanism of free legal aid? A defendant also has the right to represent themselves in a criminal trial (I wouldn't recommend it), whereas a witness for the State does not.
One eyed Jack wrote: » RuMan that's the second time now you've made that claim. I dismissed it as utter nonsense the first time as it's patently and demonstrably untrue, and secondly it's sailing awfully close to what a certain Senator tried to imply about the accused in this particular case, for which he was rightfully condemned because it implies an elitism in the sport of rugby which really is complete and utter nonsense.
RuMan wrote: » Oh for god sake man. I love rugby but its a predominantly private school game. That's nothing to be ashamed of despite your reverse snobbery. Golf is a working class game you'll be telling me next !!!
facehugger99 wrote: » What are you talking about? There are rugby clubs all over the country, including in my town, without a private school within an asses roar. You need to step outside Dublin son. Anyone I’ve spoken to involved in the sport locally would be aghast at the notion of either of them representing Ireland ever again. It won’t be happening.
tretorn wrote: » Is there any non fee paying school in Dublin that plays rugby. I have never heard of it anyway.
One eyed Jack wrote: » There's no snobbery of any kind here at all, let alone what you call reverse snobbery. All across the world, within the sport of rugby itself, it's neither confined to, nor is it predominantly played by any particular social demographic, neither historically nor in the present day. Undoubtedly there are a minority both within the sport and those outside the sport who perceive either themselves to be elite, or perceive those who play the team sport as elitist, but realistically speaking they are certainly not representative of either the majority of players of the sport, nor fans of the sport. I don't care for golf tbh so I'm not going to comment on it. My point was simply in relation to your comment that rugby attracts rich people and how you're relating that to corporate sponsors. I really can't comment on what the outcome of the IRFU investigation will be, nor the outcome for Ulster or Irish rugby in relation to whether or not corporate sponsors will continue or withdraw their support, but honestly given how quickly corporate sponsors are to withdraw their support rather than have their brand associated with any controversy, I just wouldn't be so confident that I could call it either way tbh.
RuMan wrote: » That's just false mate. Ask any Aussie about "Union" they'll tell you its for posh school boys. Same in Scotland, England and here certainly in Ulster and Leinster and to an extent Connacht. (Wales and Limerick may be an anomaly granted) This has gone off topic and anyway dont like to labour the point as I welcome more open participation as it will strengthen the Irish team.
salmocab wrote: » Utter b0llox I played in Dublin for 30 years and played with lads who were doctors, plumbers, builders, barristers, shop keepers, bouncers and all sorts. Obviously the top schools are the private ones I don’t think anyone would deny that but there is way more to rugby in Dublin than your lazy stereotypes.
RuMan wrote: » No need for the aggression mate. U should google the recent Times (UK) article about St Michaels or the Telegraph about the influence of Leinster schools rugby on Leinster and by extension Ireland. Kind of reminds me of the UK and the Olympics. You want success at the highest level you need to put in resources and good coaching early on. Success costs money. You get a bunch of 12 year olds and get professional coaching for them for 6 years until they hit 18. Strength and nutrition, eating plans, professional coaches etc. Its a fantastic set up and we're seeing the benefits on the national side now. Naive however to think you can compete against that. Hopefully we'll still get the odd player from the clubs but it wont be much more then that. I played rugby in school and after at a pretty social level. Not trying to cause offense here even a casual glance at the Leinster team would tell you the majority come from private schools. That is the effects of good coaching during the formative years.
