nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for continuing the discussion of the recent Belfast rape trial. The old thread can be found here.

Thanks,
The AH mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

take everything

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Not to judge anyone, or to purport to dictate to people what they should and should not read (though I would tread very very carefully on material relating to a trial), but before asking to be PM'd these Whatsapps it's worth asking yourself -- why do you want to see them? Is there any public or private interest in being any further privy to the private lives of these people than we already are? The trial is over. Any relevant evidence has been assessed, weighed up and scrutinised in a court of law. There is no further value in reading anyone's Whatsapps.

The thing that made this trial an affront to the principles of a fair trial was the sensationalist and even borderline voyeuristic nature of the media reporting and public discourse around the trial. I would merely humbly implore people to resist the temptation to be drawn any further into peeking under the veil between peoples' private and public lives -- make a principled stand against this obsession and instead focus on the substantive areas of debate.

The red tops just love it. Saw a headline today in the shop, something like "read all the unseen details about rape case inside...!"
I just go away thinking we really are a pathetic species in many ways. Or maybe this sex obsession and narcissism is just cultural and will eventually fcuk off and pass.

tretorn

But You have a problem with Jackson and Olding because you saw their text messages.

For all you know every one else on the team sends similar messages, you havent access to their phones so you are happy to clap them.

Neither Jackson or Olding sent the message "were any sluts ****ed" another player did, are you going to clap for him.

I think if you have a major problem with the whatsapp conversations then you should probably not go to any rugby matches at all.

A soccer player tweeted a message in support of jackson and Olding after the not guilty verdict so you should probably not go to soccer matches either in case you clap him too.

Uncharted

facehugger99 wrote: »

I'm not ignoring any rulings, I just think they behaved like absolute scumbags and should deservedly suffer the consequences of this. Polls have demonstrated that most people agree with me.

Mob man hater mentality? Whatever you need to tell yourself buddy. Personally I'm more astounded that people don't see anything wrong with their behavior and think they should just pick up where they left off. That's fcuked up.

It's none of your business how they or anyone else behaves,so long as no laws are broken.

Just because you don't like their behaviour doesn't make it wrong.

Get over yourself .....BUDDY!

Grayson

givyjoe wrote: »

Seen as they weren't found guilty of anything, I can only assume you mean because of their foolish text messages? Do you judge yourself by the same standards?

To be fair you don't have to be found guilty of anything to find your career in ruins because of your own actions. For example Mel Gibson was never convicted of anti semitism.

People here know that I believe they raped the girl. However even if you accept every single word the players said as true they still acted badly. There's a load of people who wouldn't want to be associated with that. And if a sponsor supports them then it's seen as supporting and endorsing their actions.

And for what it matters, I know the question isn't directed at me but yes, I hold myself to those standards. I've never referred to women using the language they did. I've never been part of a conversation like their whatsapp messages. I've never treated a woman the way they did.

Calina

Uncharted wrote: »

facehugger99 wrote: »

I'm not ignoring any rulings, I just think they behaved like absolute scumbags and should deservedly suffer the consequences of this. Polls have demonstrated that most people agree with me.

Mob man hater mentality? Whatever you need to tell yourself buddy. Personally I'm more astounded that people don't see anything wrong with their behavior and think they should just pick up where they left off. That's fcuked up.

It's none of your business how they or anyone else behaves,so long as no laws are broken.

Just because you don't like their behaviour doesn't make it wrong.

Get over yourself .....BUDDY!

Their employers might have an interest though.

Uncharted

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair you don't have to be found guilty of anything to find your career in ruins because of your own actions. For example Mel Gibson was never convicted of anti semitism.

People here know that I believe they raped the girl. However even if you accept every single word the players said as true they still acted badly. There's a load of people who wouldn't want to be associated with that. And if a sponsor supports them then it's seen as supporting and endorsing their actions.

And for what it matters, I know the question isn't directed at me but yes, I hold myself to those standards. I've never referred to women using the language they did. I've never been part of a conversation like their whatsapp messages. I've never treated a woman the way they did.

Must get lonely up on Walton mountain there,John Boy....

Grayson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She lectured everyone involved bar the young women.
She then ended by basicall saying - of course these men are not guilty but they must pay a price for their behaviour. The implication being 'the price' is their careers in Irish rugby.

You said she spent most of her time saying men are bad. Did she actually say that men are bad? Did she infer it in anyway.

Amnd do you have a link to the program or the transcripts?

ArthurDayne

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Can you not see that a majority of irish people think Olding and Jackson were involved in a tawdry, messy happening, where a 19 year old girl left Jackson's house in distress. Language was used that was very degrading to women. Many irish people don't want these men wearing their national jersey and representing their country???

How many times does this have to be spelt out for you week after week?

Whether you want to see them playing with Ireland or not, to be unable or unwilling to comprehend why decent irish people don't want them representing them is unbelievable.

Repeating a point over and over again doesn't mean that everyone has to just agree with you. You are pushing a fairly absolutist view on this -- which is really unhelpful.

The problem I, and many others, have with this view that Jackson & Co should just automatically be deprived their careers is that, if we were to establish a police state where all of our actions, remarks, jokes and errors of judgement were audited and published -- then I would venture that many seats in many offices and other workplaces, currently sat in by otherwise good law-abiding people, would be emptied.

You may believe in your heart and head that this girl was raped, or if not maybe you simply believe that it is wrongdoing enough for a girl to be left distraught and for guys to joke about it. On face value it is certainly cruel. On face value it is callous. On face value it is something which is neither admirable nor worthy of respect. But to say that behaving in such a way privately should automatically deprive someone of their livelihood seems excessive.

This is all the more so as the facts and circumstances of the case do appear to strongly suggest that this poor girl, though she was drunk and may not have ordinarily acted as she did, wound up taking part in a group sex act. This is not to say that her honest perception of not having consented is any way false, but there is a strong case for suggesting that this perception was supplemented more from regret and embarrassment rather than not having consented. I'm not saying this as some undeniable truth -- but the case for finding that there was a rape just was not compelling on the evidence.

The fact that their careers involve representing Ireland in sport, or that you have seemingly appointed yourself the mouthpiece of popular Irish opinion, are irrelevant because rights are rights. We have a rule of law in this country and the rule of law has been applied on this trial. The defendants are presumed innocent under the law and that presumption remains intact from the 'not guilty' verdict.

Grayson

Uncharted wrote: »

Must get lonely up on Walton mountain there,John Boy....

wht the holy fcuk are you talking about?

Lux23

Uncharted wrote: »

It's none of your business how they or anyone else behaves,so long as no laws are broken.

How do you work that out?

Uncharted

Calina wrote: »

Their employers might have an interest though.

Exactly my point. Thank you. Their employers might....... but you have no business interfering though. Thanks for clearing that up.

Crea

Word is a number of French teams have expressed an interest in Jackson and Olding. I reckon Ulster will allow them to go and that will stop them for qualifying from playing for Ireland without them being explicitly banned.
I'd say they are being strongly advised to go to France. The Irish team doesn't really need them - they are very replaceable.

FrancieBrady

Grayson wrote: »

You said she spent most of her time saying men are bad. Did she actually say that men are bad? Did she infer it in anyway.

Amnd do you have a link to the program or the transcripts?

You got me Grayson. You got me. :rolleyes

FrancieBrady

Crea wrote: »

Word is a number of French teams have expressed an interest in Jackson and Olding. I reckon Ulster will allow them to go and that will stop them for qualifying from playing for Ireland without them being explicitly banned.
I'd say they are being strongly advised to go to France. The Irish team doesn't really need them - they are very replaceable.

'As long as it doesn't happen in Ireland'...What does that hypocrisy remind me of?

Grayson

Uncharted wrote: »

Exactly my point. Thank you. Their employers might....... but you have no business interfering though. Thanks for clearing that up.

When they're public figures it is of interest. In this case they may represent the country so it's of interest to the citizens. And especially so for rugby fans since that's the sport they will be representing the country in.

For example would you say that Mel Gibsons rant about jews is of interest?
Or how about OJ. He was found not guilty but his career was ruined.

If an Irish rugby player went on a rant about jews would you think it was fair for sponsors to withdraw their endorsements? Would it be fair for fans to say he shouldn't play? In that case no laws may have been broken (depending what what exactly was said in the rant) but it would still be considered behaviour that you don't want in someone representing their country.

Grayson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You got me Grayson. You got me. :rolleyes

Roll your eyes all you want. You just admitted to lying.

Do you happen to have a link to the program? A lot of radio shows put links to recordings up so it may be that we could listen to the show ourselves.

LLMMLL

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Not to judge anyone, or to purport to dictate to people what they should and should not read (though I would tread very very carefully on material relating to a trial), but before asking to be PM'd these Whatsapps it's worth asking yourself -- why do you want to see them? Is there any public or private interest in being any further privy to the private lives of these people than we already are? The trial is over. Any relevant evidence has been assessed, weighed up and scrutinised in a court of law. There is no further value in reading anyone's Whatsapps.

The thing that made this trial an affront to the principles of a fair trial was the sensationalist and even borderline voyeuristic nature of the media reporting and public discourse around the trial. I would merely humbly implore people to resist the temptation to be drawn any further into peeking under the veil between peoples' private and public lives -- make a principled stand against this obsession and instead focus on the substantive areas of debate.

We all know why they want to see them. They're pigs with their snouts in the trough and for some reason aren't even embarrassed by it.

Lux23

Paddy Jackson and his lawyer completely f***ed up his own rehabilitation. If he had stood outside that courtroom a couple of weeks ago just like Olding did and apologised to the complainant and made no comment other than he wants to just get on with life, he would probably have been welcomed back to Ulster Rugby quietly, and most people wouldn't have cared. Instead, he stood there while his lawyer attacked the press, the general public, politicians and then threatened to sue people who said they still believed the complainant. Then nine days later he comes out with a hollow, empty apology because someone finally managed to get some sense into his tiny little head that just because he's an innocent man by law doesn't mean that his behaviour was considered of the standard expected of our athletes today. And what has really messed things up for him was that advert from the 'real' Ulster fans and then Willie 'Boys will be Boys' McBride's interview. This thing isn't going to blow over for him if he keeps pushing it and now he's looking to recoup his legal costs. Nah, it's over for him.

jimmycrackcorm

Grayson wrote:

People here know that I believe they raped the girl. However even if you accept every single word the players said as true they still acted badly. There's a load of people who wouldn't want to be associated with that. And if a sponsor supports them then it's seen as supporting and endorsing their actions.

A lot more people believe the case is more to do with feeling embarrassed by an independent witness walking in and seeing a threesome. I suspect that the remark about middle class girls alluded to that.

I doubt any of the ibelieveher sjws actually follow rugby anyway so it won't matter for the sponsors.

Lux23

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

A lot more people believe the case is more to do with feeling embarrassed by an independent witness walking in and seeing a threesome. I suspect that the remark about middle class girls alluded to that.

I doubt any of the ibelieveher sjws actually follow rugby anyway so it won't matter for the sponsors.

And it is this attitude that will probably end Jackson's career. The inability to see that everyone has a right to an opinion regardless how many times they went to a match in the Aviva or Lansdowne Road.

[Deleted User]

tretorn wrote: »

......... It will also piss off a lot of wealthy rugby fans ............

What does wealth have to do with it?

kirving

Lux23 wrote: »

...and now he's looking to recoup his legal costs.

Most people in similar circumstances end up in massive debt after such a court case. Do you think that this is fair for someone who is not guilty?

tretorn

Lux23 wrote: »

Paddy Jackson and his lawyer completely f***ed up his own rehabilitation. If he had stood outside that courtroom a couple of weeks ago just like Olding did and apologised to the complainant and made no comment other than he wants to just get on with life, he would probably have been welcomed back to Ulster Rugby quietly, and most people wouldn't have cared. Instead, he stood there while his lawyer attacked the press, the general public, politicians and then threatened to sue people who said they still believed the complainant. Then nine days later he comes out with a hollow, empty apology because someone finally managed to get some sense into his tiny little head that just because he's an innocent man by law doesn't mean that his behaviour was considered of the standard expected of our athletes today. And what has really messed things up for him was that advert from the 'real' Ulster fans and then Willie 'Boys will be Boys' McBride's interview. This thing isn't going to blow over for him if he keeps pushing it and now he's looking to recoup his legal costs. Nah, it's over for him.

He doesnt need to be rehabilitated though.

As far as he is concerned a stranger invited herself into his home and then went up to his bedroom with him. She stayed in the bedroom for forty five minutes.

There were three other women who went back to his house and they all testified they had a very pleasant evening there, none went to the bedroom with him though.

Jackson to his own mind was questioned by the police and he told his truth. The Police didnt believe him and they referred the case to the PPS but the police did tell the PPS the case didnt have the required evidence thats needed for it to go to trial. The PPS disregarded this advice and took the case to trial anyway.

After nine very long weeks the jury took less than a hour to acquit Jackson, there were four men charged and the jury deliberated for less than four hours in total so thats sixty minutes per man.

If Jackson hadnt threatened legal action people would insist on referring to him as a rapist. Most twitter people who were calling him a rapist took their tweets down when legal action against O Riordan was launched. The media biased though it is are very careful now too in the way they report on this case now.

Zulu

Grayson wrote: »

You just admitted to lying.

No they didnt

Do you happen to have a link to the program? A lot of radio shows

Why are you persistently badgering this point. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rte radio 1

Faugheen

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Grayson wrote:

People here know that I believe they raped the girl. However even if you accept every single word the players said as true they still acted badly. There's a load of people who wouldn't want to be associated with that. And if a sponsor supports them then it's seen as supporting and endorsing their actions.

A lot more people believe the case is more to do with feeling embarrassed by an independent witness walking in and seeing a threesome. I suspect that the remark about middle class girls alluded to that.

I doubt any of the ibelieveher sjws actually follow rugby anyway so it won't matter for the sponsors.

There isn't one bit of this post that is true.

There is way more people than the 'ibelieveher sjw's' who don't want them to play for Ireland again. If anyone thinks otherwise then you're deluded, and your head is stubbornly stuck in the sand.

Whether they follow rugby or not is irrelevant. Sponsors know this. It seems some people here don't.

BBDBB

and theres plenty who do want them to play for Ulster/Ireland again

and then theres plenty who really couldn't give a ****e

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

There isn't one bit of this post that is true.

There is way more people than the 'ibelieveher sjw's' who don't want them to play for Ireland again. If anyone thinks otherwise then you're deluded, and your head is stubbornly stuck in the sand.

Whether they follow rugby or not is irrelevant. Sponsors know this. It seems some people here don't.

Can you prove what you claim? No you can't.

Have sponsors said one public word on this? No they haven't.

A short period of suspension may well be enough. You or I don't know.

FrancieBrady

BBDBB wrote: »

and theres plenty who do want them to play for Ulster/Ireland again

and then theres plenty who really couldn't give a ****e

Closest to the truth wins the goose!

Lux23

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Most people in similar circumstances end up in massive debt after such a court case. Do you think that this is fair for someone who is not guilty?

Not particularly, but if he showed even a smidge of contriteness outside that courtroom he might manage to get a few quid back quietly. He chose a path which was attack and that backfired massively. He should have just went home and waited for the call.

Mrsmum

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Most people in similar circumstances end up in massive debt after such a court case. Do you think that this is fair for someone who is not guilty?

Of course it's fair. Whose bill is it but his.