NAGDEFI wrote: » If you can't see how there's an issue beyond the trial, you have a problem seeing the big picture.
tretorn wrote: » There isnt any issue beyongd the court case. The did any Belfast sluts get ****ed is the really bad text and Gilroy has been sent to the bold corner. Nothing that Jackson or Olding sent is particularly bad and if the men had been sent to prison no one would give a toss about the whatsapp messages. Telling your friends you had legal sex is not a crime and thats basically what the whatsapp messages were about. The mob are just fermenting outrage so the torture inflicted on Jackson and olding can be prolonged. jackson has threatened legal action and this has made the mob holdback on libellous stuff, this has made them foam at the gills.
tretorn wrote: » As far as I was aware in this country you have the right to free association and the right to private communication with your friends. How do you propose to police young mens conversations nagdefi. You user name is very apt, you sound like a right old nag. Why on earth would I care what sports players text to each other, the messages are not sent to cause me offence or harm, I have conversations on my phone I would clear if I was asked to go to a Garda Station, I can only imagine the mass clearing of phones that went on in the Rugby circles once news got out that Jackson and Olding were being questioned. The only problem as Gilroy found out to his cost, there is no point in clearing your phone after you have pressed the send button. If anyone should be barred from playing rugby its Gilroy, he said the worst text of all. George Hook was bullied beyond belief and I knew Newstalk giving into cyber bullying was going to set a precedent and it has. The day he was sacked was the day the censor police took over and their tactics are frightening. Thats the main reason why I want to see Jackson and Olding back, I dont care about rugby but I dont like bullying, braying mobs.
NAGDEFI wrote: » That's the whole definition of privacy today again. They got caught! Poor old 75 year old George Hook was knocked off the air for saying a girl should be very careful on a night out. Do you not think there were going to be no consequences for such messages becoming public? Sin é an t-saol!!
mfceiling wrote: » You should have been a solicitor then with your excellent Internet arguing skills. The real solicitors however argued successfully that Jackson and Olding should be found not guilty of the charge. I hope no other irish sports person sends or receives an inappropriate text or whatsapp message....the eternally offended will make sure their career is finished in a heartbeat.
FrancieBrady wrote: » You get a fine for 'speeding'. These guys careers and livelihoods are on the line for a few rude words.
Mrsmum wrote: » Considering how getting really drunk and engaging in sexual activity with a stranger has impacted on the lives of these men, I'm wondering why no advice for men on how to stay safe. Drink, strangers, sex - recipe for trouble. The more you engage in this risky business the more possibilities for 'misunderstanding' or as you say yourself "something untoward happening" . I would put getting raped in the worst category but being called a rapist is a very close second. So thanks for all the advice to us females on how not to get raped but maybe you could give a think about your son's safety too and have a word with him as well as your daughter heading out the door. The girl isn't the only one whose life could change utterly in one night. Again as you said yourself Common Sense.
NAGDEFI wrote: » Well is it not time to stop this behaviour Tretorn? Someone always has to take the rap. Saying everyone speaks like that is the same as saying well i got caught speeding and was fined but everyone does it so it's grossly unfair. Everyone should have a fine in the post.
FrancieBrady wrote: » They were talking among themselves. Are you so seriously deluded to think that men and women are not similarly graphic when talking privately? As suspected you are another one way up on a high moral ridge just wanting a win here. And the human beings caught in the moralistic headlights don't matter one iota.
mfceiling wrote: » PM your address and I'll post your winners medal in the morning.
NAGDEFI wrote: » Firstly i like you Francie. You're not a bol*ix:D I think it's context for me. Take slut on it's own, not too bad. Take all the terms, spit roasting, top shaggers, fcuking sluts and the overall impression is of lads who were very disrespectful, in my opinion. We all know the phrase crossing the line...it's imaginery, but i feel the men crossed it.
joe40 wrote: » Seriously, is that meant to be a serious post. I'm glad women don't all that cause I would have missed out on some great nights. I would say a lot of Irish marriages started with a night like that. Sex does not need to be assumed as a right in that situation by any half reasonable human being. The rape crisis centre should be some sort of moral guardian for young women? In a thread full of some idiotic posts that is up there with the best of them
tretorn wrote: » Look, the lads were the ones who got caught, can you not grasp that they arent unique in the way they refer to women. I think women would object much more to a woman calling them sluts than they would if a man says it. I would think the three women who were in the company of the woman who alleged rape were less than impressed when they saw her text calling them slutty, the didnt know her from Adam and they testified they felt sorry for her being there as a billy no mate. She called them slutty and then headed up to bed with PJ, you would laugh except for what happened afterwards.
NAGDEFI wrote: » I'd say your memory is so poor and you are so used to condescending that you actually can't remember your insult. Of course i put you in your box.
NAGDEFI wrote: » You don't annoy me in the least but it's really easy to counter any argument you make.
mfceiling wrote: » Sarcasm much? I'm sure even you have a friend/relation or colleague who is involved in law. Run your genius arguments about Jackson and Olding past him/her.....see how little you actually know about the laws and what can and can't be used in evidence in court.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Why not? Perfectly descriptive slang word for a promiscuous woman. What should we call them?
mfceiling wrote: » And the solicitors, jury and judge easily saw through this and convicted all 4. No wait...
NAGDEFI wrote: » I don't like internationals referring to spit roasting or any women as sluts.
mfceiling wrote: » Jesus you are easily offended if you thought a few posts of mine were "bad mannered" (I presume you reported them). Can't handle the heat from a few folk behind a keyboard....good one.
