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; } } }

Child Item

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

facehugger99

givyjoe wrote: »

Sweet sweet irony.:rolleyes: You make a pathetic jab and AGAIN, use a ridiculous example. OJ did commit the murder (everyone knows it) hence why he wrote the book "If i did murder them.. this is how id do it" His sponsorship were cut because he's a murderer. As we now know, the glove didn't fit, because it shrank. OJ was also successfully sued in a Civil Case for the murders. I'd wager my life savings that the complainant won't be doing likewise successfully. Perhaps you can choose less ludicrous examples.

So basically what you're saying is that if someone is found innocent in a court case, they might still actually be guilty?

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I thought it was Newstalk I heard her on. But I switch between RYE and NT on the commute, so could be wrong.

Basically all the male contributions were bad, from the defendant's to Willie John to male rugby and not a word, or single syllable about women's responsibilities

Fairly clear agenda there and it isn't to prevent rape primarily.

Do you have any criticisms with what the CEO of the Rape Crisis Centre said on Morning Ireland?

Venom

Grayson wrote: »

I'd allow people to claim money back but means test it. There's no reason a person with a hundred million in the bank should be able to claim back. On the other hand there's no reason someone should go broke.

I'd like to see some kind of self regulation within the legal professions to insure that their charges don't get too excessive. But that's never going to happen.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it leads to situations like in the US, where someone could be sued into bankruptcy via frivolous lawsuits. The loser of such BS legal claims should always have to pay all court costs.

I agree with means testing for free legal aid but I do think your legal costs should be covered if you're found not guilty or win your case, regardless of how much money you have in the bank. The state shouldn't get to drag people through the court system when there is little chance of them getting a conviction and not have to suffer any financial penalty.

jimmycrackcorm

meeeeh wrote:

I think where it ends is that I don't want my son to idolize men who treat women only as a piece of meet to be passed around and label them as slut. I don't want my daughter to be labelled a slut by man she sleeps with. I don't want her leaving his place crying and bleeding. And I certainly don't want my kids to think it's ever ok to have a laugh at the expense of someone else's distress.

There was a very good newspaper article mentioned in another post questioning why there is an assumption that people playing sports should automatically be assumed to be role models.

If you think your son is going to grow up and not be having private conversations with his friends that you would disapprove of then you may start fitting a pair of angel wings and a halo on him now.

Venom

jm08 wrote: »

CEO (Michael Sodan) resigned a couple of years ago because he accessed a porn site from his desk which was against company policy.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2004/0530/50702-boi/

Would he have had to resign for accessing porn from his home computer tho?

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

Do you have any criticisms with what the CEO of the Rape Crisis Centre said on Morning Ireland?

Yes. It was focussed on the frailities of males. There was no criticism of the woman involved here. And that is wrong.
If the men are not guilty then if she has a problem with the behaviour there is a wider responsibility. She ignored that to pound the men are bad drum.

jm08

alchemist33 wrote: »

But, as with the point above, that's for things done at work or using work equipment. Not private messages unconnected to work.

I don't think the CEO of BOI resigned because he was wasting banking time looking at porn sites.

givyjoe

facehugger99 wrote: »

So basically what you're saying is that if someone is found innocent in a court case, they might still actually be guilty?

:rolleyes:
I shouldn't be surprised that you are the one that responds with this.
OJ beat his wife multiple times
OJ fled from the cops when they came to arrest/charge him
OJ was sued successfully in Civil Court relating to the crime
OJ wrote a book on how he 'would have murdered them'

Nothing in PJ's actions before or after the alleged crime suggest he actually did it. If you believe the two cases are comparable, by all means embarrass yourself.

meeeeh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Will you tell them that if they make a mistake their careers are basically over and that one of their parents proudly saw to it that a number of people's careers ended?

I posted on boards.ie, I think you overestimate my influence excessively, in fact only reaction I influenced is my own. I suspect that even my husband doesn't exactly agree with me.

That being said I don't want any sports personalities or other celebrities to be put on pedestal. But I am also realistic enough to know they have influence. Normally I would have no interest in people's private life but when it's hard to miss then I will have an opinion. There is also failing of rugby (sports) clubs. They have no problem encouraging those players, telling them how great they are, instructing them what to eat, how to exercise but it seems they teach them very little how to deal with other trappings of their social status. I don't like how rape trials are reported on and defendants named but this was no exception, they knew that's how things are done in UK. There were also plenty of very public trials of different celebrities to teach them to be more careful. They can't have the excuse that they didn't think something like this could happen to them. Call it my type of victim blaming but they are victims of their own arrogance. Did they pay excessive price? Maybe but they were also excessively revarded before (in comparison to average person).

Grayson

givyjoe wrote: »

Sweet sweet irony.:rolleyes: You make a pathetic jab and AGAIN, use a ridiculous example. OJ did commit the murder (everyone knows it) hence why he wrote the book "If i did murder them.. this is how id do it" His sponsorship were cut because he's a murderer. As we now know, the glove didn't fit, because it shrank. OJ was also successfully sued in a Civil Case for the murders. I'd wager my life savings that the complainant won't be doing likewise successfully. Perhaps you can choose less ludicrous examples.

Are you saying OJ isn't innocent? But a jury acquitted him! Isn't that the gold standard?

My point is that sponsors dropped him because they didn't want to be associated with him. It wasn't because he was found not guilty by a jury.

BoI and other companies are perfectly entitled to end any and all relationships with these players. A guilty/not guilty verdict doesn't matter. All that matters is if they feel that person is someone they want to represent them.

facehugger99

givyjoe wrote: »

:rolleyes:
I shouldn't be surprised that you are the one that responds with this.
OJ beat his wife multiple times
OJ fled from the cops when they came to arrest/charge him
OJ was sued successfully in Civil Court relating to the crime
OJ wrote a book on how he 'would have murdered them'

So, the jury got it wrong?

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes. It was focussed on the frailities of males. There was no criticism of the woman involved here. And that is wrong.
If the men are not guilty then if she has a problem with the behaviour there is a wider responsibility. She ignored that to pound the men are bad drum.

She was specifically talking about the derogatory way that the men discussed woman in the texts. She wasn't talking about the court case. The only think she said was that they were acquitted of all charges.

“There has to be a real examination of their disrespectful and derogatory behaviour in order to identify what they as role models, people who are held up as the best in the land, would think of women, as was shown in the WhatsApp texts, in a way that they themselves recognise were hurtful and harmful.
“It has to be looked at not just in the context of what they said that night, but whether that it is a way of operating within rugby, that rugby condones or allows to happen.”

kirving

Mrsmum wrote: »

Seriously. you are boring me now. We all have to cut our cloth and if I was accused of something whereby I needed legal representation I would chose one that I could afford. If I could afford nothing I would apply for legal aid and put up with whoever I got. If I thought I needed the big boys or gals I would beg, borrow or steal so to speak to afford them. And if I was found not guilty I would say "didn't I do the right thing engaging X to represent me" and I would never for one moment think someone else should pay my bill from my chosen expensive lawyer.

So what you're saying is... (Not referring to the current case btw)

I can make a claim that you and your friends have done something which I made up entirely in my head. Something which will ruin your life and send you to prison for years. The DPP decide to try all of you together as it's more likely that your stories will contradict one another and they'll get a conviction. Instead of a potential two week trial, its now 8 weeks.

After all that, you and your family are homeless because you've had to sell your house to defend yourself against something I dreamed up.

Yep, sounds fair to me.

You have a subjective viewpoint which you haven't thought through fully, and are now scrambling to justify it.

Grayson

facehugger99 wrote: »

Never put anything in an email or text message that you aren't happy to read aloud to your family and colleagues.

It's a very sensible rule to live by.

People thinking their texts are private, - they're not.

Everytime I see a scandal about something like that i have to think what kind of idiots are they? You hear about places like Uber and wonder "how did they ever think that was acceptable?"

jm08

Meanwhile, in a school in Cork.

School launches investigation after 'sexual assault list' posted in boys toilets

Shockingly, the list then advised that the young woman who garnered the greatest number of 'ticks' beside her name would be targeted for a sexual assault.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/school-launches-investigation-after-sexual-assault-list-posted-in-boys-toilets-36800398.html

givyjoe

Grayson wrote: »

Are you saying OJ isn't innocent? But a jury acquitted him! Isn't that the gold standard?

My point is that sponsors dropped him because they didn't want to be associated with him. It wasn't because he was found not guilty by a jury.

BoI and other companies are perfectly entitled to end any and all relationships with these players. A guilty/not guilty verdict doesn't matter. All that matters is if they feel that person is someone they want to represent them.

I believe OJ it, he effectively admitted as much with his book. He was found not guilty in court of course, with the reasonable doubt coming from the glove which had shrunk. He was dropped because he was clearly the person who murdered, sorry killed, his ex wife, with the case exposing his past beatings of his ex wife. Fairly simple really.

Do you really need these details explained to you to clarify why the examples aren't equivalent OR relevant?

The ONLY reason such companies will stop sponsoring them, is because they may believe it will negatively impact them. I'd say you knew that already, but based on your posts, probably not.

BBDBB

^^I expect that will be Paddy Jacksons fault by 6pm today

ArthurDayne

meeeeh wrote: »

I think where it ends is that I don't want my son to idolize men who treat women only as a piece of meet to be passed around and label them as slut. I don't want my daughter to be labelled a slut by man she sleeps with. I don't want her leaving his place crying and bleeding. And I certainly don't want my kids to think it's ever ok to have a laugh at the expense of someone else's distress.

I don't want to police people's private life but if their toxic attitudes spill into public life then don't expect me to applaud them. If they want to work in a call centre or cleaning or some anonymous job then I am sure they will be fine but they are not entitled to represent their country and be idolized by millions.

Your concerns as a parent are valid, and your aspirations for your children are perfectly normal, responsible and admirable. They are however, sadly, predicated on naivety. If you want to live in a dreamworld where you assume that everyone's public persona corresponds to their private persona then you are certainly entitled to live your days blissfully in denial -- but calling for the effectively automatic deprivation of careers and livelihoods over crude comments and acting like a d**k in their private lives, whether you would accept the term or not, is an act of attempted 'thought-policing'.

How will you ever know that the people your son idolises don't treat women as pieces of meat? Maybe he will idolise some wonderful sports icon who by all public appearances is the exemplar of chivalry, but is also privately calling his sexual conquests sluts and using disgusting metaphors for their private parts. You're going to have to hire a Private Detective to hack the phone of every person your son idolises or even hangs out with to ensure that these people pass your test of moral sanctity.

Nobody in this debate has ever suggested that you applaud Jackson and his mates. Nobody. What is being said is that we cannot crucify people and automatically deprive them of their careers for not always conforming to moral perfection in their private lives. If we were to apply your test, that only morally pure people can be in positions of authority or representing a country, how many otherwise good people would be culled?

If you want a world where we all treat eachother respectfully 24/7; where we all talk politely with our friends; where we all incessantly and religiously stay within the lines of chivalry and morality at every moment of our lives; and where we all never say or do anything to upset anyone or say mean and disgusting things behind their back --- then I applaud that. That's how I will try to raise my kids too if I ever have any. I don't expect they will attain this impossible standard of moral perfection. I expect they will deviate from it at many junctures in their lives -- but I hope they do not ever have to grow up in your world where their failure to meet that standard means they can be robbed of everything they have worked for just because they have had possible success in life and are publicly known.

upandcumming

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

And what makes them the authority on anything?

upandcumming

jm08 wrote: »

Why didn't Jackson apply for legal aid like Olding did? Is it because legal aid would not pay for two counsels and a solicitor?

Olding ran out of money partway through the trial. Jackson could afford this. To be honest, I wouldn't be hanging my hat on legal aid in this case.

upandcumming

jm08 wrote: »

Meanwhile, in a school in Cork.

School launches investigation after 'sexual assault list' posted in boys toilets

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/school-launches-investigation-after-sexual-assault-list-posted-in-boys-toilets-36800398.html

This, while abhorrent, has nothing to do with this trial or aftermath.

meeeeh

ArthurDayne wrote: »

...a novel written about parenting by someone who has no kids...

I have no intention digging into anyone's private life but their private life is not private it's public because of the trial. That's the difference.

I'm fairly realistic about kids but it's my job they don't grow into men like those on trial and that is the job I tend to try to achieve.

jm08

Venom wrote: »

Would he have had to resign for accessing porn from his home computer tho?

I'd imagine the bank owned his home computer as well.

Venom

Grayson wrote: »

Everytime I see a scandal about something like that i have to think what kind of idiots are they? You hear about places like Uber and wonder "how did they ever think that was acceptable?"

Except 99.9% of the time said scandal involves people posting outrageous stuff on social media platforms like a certain senator recently did and who is now in a world of ****. Very rarely do people get grief for private messages to others outside the public eye.

jm08

upandcumming wrote: »

This, while abhorrent, has nothing to do with this trial or aftermath.

Really. We've just had a blow-by-blow account about how sports starts treat women like a piece of meat and get away with it.

givyjoe

jm08 wrote: »

Really. We've just had a blow-by-blow account about how sports starts treat women like a piece of meat and get away with it.

Yeah they really 'got away with it'. :rolleyes:.

jm08

upandcumming wrote: »

Olding ran out of money partway through the trial. Jackson could afford this. To be honest, I wouldn't be hanging my hat on legal aid in this case.

Jackson has huge earning capability. He probably earns 10 times what a person of his age earns here and probably 20 times if he moved to France. He would get at least 500K a year there.

[Deleted User]

jm08 wrote: »

Really. We've just had a blow-by-blow account about how sports starts treat women like a piece of meat and get away with it.

If my son was one of the kids involved, I would be the person taking responsibility for his actions, not passing the buck to Paddy Jackson.

Grayson

Venom wrote: »

Except 99.9% of the time said scandal involves people posting outrageous stuff on social media platforms like a certain senator recently did and who is now in a world of ****. Very rarely do people get grief for private messages to others outside the public eye.

Obviously. If it's private than no-one knows about it.

The thing is in this case the players essentially have a number of duties that com with their job.
One is to play rugby. The verdict and the texts do not impact that at all.
The other responsibilities include representing their country . Being ambassadors for certain products and sponsors.
Those messages and their behaviour that night affects their ability to do that. Sure they were sent privately but they are now public. They can't be made private again. the public can't forget them.

upandcumming

jm08 wrote: »

Why didn't Jackson apply for legal aid like Olding did? Is it because legal aid would not pay for two counsels and a solicitor?

upandcumming wrote: »

Olding ran out of money partway through the trial. Jackson could afford this. To be honest, I wouldn't be hanging my hat on legal aid in this case.

jm08 wrote: »

Jackson has huge earning capability. He probably earns 10 times what a person of his age earns here and probably 20 times if he moved to France. He would get at least 500K a year there.

I answered your question here. What are you talking about now?