_Whimsical_ wrote: » For me her behaviour, walking in on a friend having sex, and her testimony do not add up.
Grayson wrote: » I never said that what they said is equivalent to an anti semitic rant. I was pointing out, and I said I was pointing out, that people can lose jobs, sponsorship etc for something that wasn't a crime. Please don't misrepresent what I said. I was very clear when I said that people have found their career in ruins because of something they did that wasn't a crime. And no, I'm not saintly. I've made mistakes. That doesn't mean I'm a cnut though. It doesn't mean I treat women like sh1t. Their behaviour and their language was degrading and offensive.
Mrsmum wrote: » Excuse me. I am absolutely honest. If there is a way for him to not pay his bill, I couldn't care less about that either. There must be people all the time that lose their cases because they can't afford the best or even close. If you do engage the best, that your (or his in this case )business. But don't be boohooing afterwards.
givyjoe wrote: » So a potentially innocent person should be financially crippled defending themselves should they? I think you're being more than a little disingenuous saying you wouldn't have a problem footing a legal bill for a crime you didn't commit. Be honest, what you really mean is, you don't have a problem with PJ footing the cost for the legal bills in this case.
jm08 wrote: » Francie - here is written content of CEO of Rape Crisis Centre on Morning Ireland.Rugby must deal with ‘derogatory’ behaviour - Rape Crisis Centre Chief executive says calls for Jackson and Olding to be reinstated are a ‘shame and a pity’https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rugby-must-deal-with-derogatory-behaviour-rape-crisis-centre-1.3459365
givyjoe wrote: » Are you for real? What did PJ say that was even remotely comparable to Mel Gibson. I've read the messages that were posted in the article earlier, he referred to spit roasting..aka consensual group sex... do you find 'spit roasting' morally reprehensible similar to Anti-antisemitism? PJ is bearing the brunt of what was said by the other lads. The question wasn't aimed at you, correct. The question was aimed at the hypocritical poster who holds PJ and the lads to a higher standard than themselves. I'm sure you're a saintly member of society who has never wronged, spoke ill of anyone or disrespected them of course. And yes, you have specifically said you believed they raped her, despite the evidence to the contrary and judgment by you know, a jury. :rolleyes:
Mrsmum wrote: » Yes. Can't be any clearer than that. Be careful what you are wishing for though because many criminals can afford the very best top lawyers who get them off every day of the week. When such people are found 'not guilty' do you want the state ie you paying their bill ?
TomSweeney wrote: » I actually thought these guys were guilty at first but ... convinced me otherwise...
Venom wrote: » So if you yourself were accused of a pretty horrific crime and taking to court, only to be found not guilty after months of your name being dragged through the mud on various media formats and had a substantial bill from your legal team, you would be fine just paying it?
Appledreams15 wrote: » Really it is not to do with if they were found guilty or innocent right now, they were found innocent and we all respect that. It is to do with their language and behaviour aganst women. The sponsors are another factor to consider: their main sponsor has now said this: "As a sponsor of Ulster Rugby, Bank of Ireland is highly concerned regarding the serious behaviour and conduct issues which have emerged as a result of the recent high profile trial," read a Bank of Ireland statement. "The Bank has formally conveyed these concerns to the CEO of Ulster Rugby.". Do families want to go and watch a rugby team that has members that: called women sluts and calls women merry-go-rounds. It is not very family friendly. I can see why sponsors would start to question it.
Appledreams15 wrote: » He also had blood all over his bed....fact from case
Mrsmum wrote: » I couldn't care less about his bill and if he is entitled to get back some of it more power to him. If he's not, it's still his bill. I would have thought he would be saying his lawyer was worth every dime.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Look at the pantheon of sportspeople who have behaved badly and then look at the sponsors still sponsoring the sports they are still playing. Then get back to us. The sponsors will fudge this like they generally always do.
During cross-examination by Brendan Kelly QC, representing Mr Jackson, Ms Florence was questioned about two statements provided to police after the alleged incident, in which she claimed the woman had not appeared distressed. When asked by Mr Kelly if that remained her recollection, Ms Florence said: "100%." The court heard that she did not have any concerns about what she saw in the bedroom.
FrancieBrady wrote: » The 'system' allows him to apply for funds to offset his substantial costs. Get over it. There are some around here who would bring back hanging if they could.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Appledreams15 wrote: » Really it is not to do with if they were found guilty or innocent right now, they were found innocent and we all respect that. It is to do with their language and behaviour aganst women. The sponsors are another factor to consider: their main sponsor has now said this: "As a sponsor of Ulster Rugby, Bank of Ireland is highly concerned regarding the serious behaviour and conduct issues which have emerged as a result of the recent high profile trial," read a Bank of Ireland statement. "The Bank has formally conveyed these concerns to the CEO of Ulster Rugby.". Do families want to go and watch a rugby team that has members that: called women sluts and calls women merry-go-rounds. It is not very family friendly. I can see why sponsors would start to question it. Look at the pantheon of sportspeople who have behaved badly and then look at the sponsors still sponsoring the sports they are still playing. Then get back to us. The sponsors will fudge this like they generally always do.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » Numerous polls online suggest otherwise my friend. Whether you want to believe them or not is your prerogative. I wouldn't put full faith in them either but it gives you some idea of public opinion on the issue. Basically I have just as much proof as those suggesting more want them back. They can't prove it to the contrary so why is your lecture only aimed at me? And one sponsor has in fact said they're keeping an eye on the situation, in case you haven't noticed. Fact is, while sponsors were targeting the rugby community. The sport has been a major talking point in Irish society in the last couple of weeks because of this trial, whether you like it or not. With the sport in such a negative spotlight, sponsors will pay attention. Like I said, for anyone to deny this has their head in the sand. Basically, I'm putting forward arguments and you're just dismissing them as if they don't matter. They do, and I reckon there's going to be a very angry 'mob' here if they're not allowed play in Ireland again. I think they will head off with full pockets and play abroad actually. And the matter will be fudged by the IRFU and sponsors. You won't get a dramatic sacking or humiliation. And we will all get back to enjoying the game.
Faugheen wrote: » Numerous polls online suggest otherwise my friend. Whether you want to believe them or not is your prerogative. I wouldn't put full faith in them either but it gives you some idea of public opinion on the issue. Basically I have just as much proof as those suggesting more want them back. They can't prove it to the contrary so why is your lecture only aimed at me? And one sponsor has in fact said they're keeping an eye on the situation, in case you haven't noticed. Fact is, while sponsors were targeting the rugby community. The sport has been a major talking point in Irish society in the last couple of weeks because of this trial, whether you like it or not. With the sport in such a negative spotlight, sponsors will pay attention. Like I said, for anyone to deny this has their head in the sand. Basically, I'm putting forward arguments and you're just dismissing them as if they don't matter. They do, and I reckon there's going to be a very angry 'mob' here if they're not allowed play in Ireland again.
givyjoe wrote: » 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. Are you for real? What did PJ say that was even remotely comparable to Mel Gibson. I've read the messages that were posted in the article earlier, he referred to spit roasting..aka consensual group sex... do you find 'spit roasting' morally reprehensible similar to Anti-antisemitism? PJ is bearing the brunt of what was said by the other lads. The question wasn't aimed at you, correct. The question was aimed at the hypocritical poster who holds PJ and the lads to a higher standard than themselves. I'm sure you're a saintly member of society who has never wronged, spoke ill of anyone or disrespected them of course. And yes, you have specifically said you believed they raped her, despite the evidence to the contrary and judgment by you know, a jury. :rolleyes:
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.
Mrsmum wrote: » That's the system and the exact same thing would happen to me or you in similar circumstances. He isn't left with the court costs, he has to pay the lawyer he engaged to do a job for him. Why don't you gofundhim.
tretorn wrote: » The women who sleep with sports star use the men as much as the men who use them. The women chase these men for the celebrety factor, they could easily find a nice gentleman at the bar but he cant attract women. Leave the women who are happy to play threesomes to it, you either have commonsense and respect for your body or hou dont. PJ and men like him arent pretending to be anything other than what they are and its clear now they have no problem attracting women. Dara Florence and her friends are stunning women, they could have left the night club with their choice of men and they freely choose to go to Jacksons house, probably not for Jackson himself but because he was in the VIP section.
mfceiling wrote: » I hope someone never brings a court case against you that you win and are left with court costs.
Mrsmum wrote: » Of course it's fair. Whose bill is it but his.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 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.
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.
