Faugheen wrote: » It's not sensationalist. Jackson and Olding have acknowledged she was upset. Jackson and a doctor both said she was bleeding. Rory Harrison told Blane McIlroy that she was in hysterics. Jackson and Olding did that. There's nothing 'sensationalist' about that. You haven't a leg to stand on, so instead of holding your hands up you try to weasel your way out of it and take some sort of high ground. You've been so far out of your depth in this conversation it's unreal.
If a married man hurt his wife so much that the bed was covered in her blood and she ran away in tears. And then joked about it the next day I'd call him a cnut.
Grayson wrote: » I believe the other phrase that was used was feminazi's. So 60% of the country are feminazi's Strangely I don't think anyone had labeled the players supporters. Whereas the players supporters have tried to label everyone who disagrees with them.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Fed up dealing with hysterical sensationalism about this case. I'll just ignore it from now on Grayson.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Grayson wrote: » If a married man hurt his wife so much that the bed was covered in her blood and she ran away in tears. And then joked about it the next day I'd call him a cnut. And I wouldn't call what he did a "mistake". Ah but that's perfectly acceptable to you. You hear that and think "give that man a job". Fed up dealing with hysterical sensationalism about this case. I'll just ignore it from now on Grayson.
Grayson wrote: » If a married man hurt his wife so much that the bed was covered in her blood and she ran away in tears. And then joked about it the next day I'd call him a cnut. And I wouldn't call what he did a "mistake". Ah but that's perfectly acceptable to you. You hear that and think "give that man a job".
BBDBB wrote: » Fair point NAGDEFIwe each must defend the line of what we deem as acceptable To be clear I dont think what the 4 lads did was acceptable, it was a pretty low and disrespectful way to treat a girl. No question However, do I believe that they should be forced to work out of the country because of it? No Theres a line of acceptable behaviour Theres also a line of whats a reasonable and commensurate punishment for the 'crime' For me, two years of hell, suspension from work, a 9 week trial that Ive put myself and my family through and then the ****storm that has followed online and in the media. For a Not Guilty verdict I think they've been punished enough for their crossing of a line which we cant agree on
Muahahaha wrote: » Well I never said any of what you are saying above. What I am saying is that if you have not learnt how to respect women by the age of 21 then that is on them. They went to the best schools and have good parents yet still they behaved like children. If Jackson and Olding were horny teenagers of 17 or 18 then there is some leeway for them. But at 24 (22 in Oldings case as Tretorn pointed out) they no longer have the defence of being giddy teenagers. Your argument is actually identical to Willie McBrides yesterday "ah sure they are only young lads"- at what point do you expect them to behave appropriately towards women- is 26 okay for you or should we allow them to be derogatory towards women until they are 30 because "they are only young lads"? If they havent grown up by 22/24 then chances are they never will. I feel sorry for the shame they have brought on their parents, there is no way they brought them up in this way.
meeeeh wrote: » Normally no, but you are not entitled to a career that so heavily rests on adulation of the fans. It's a career that is richly rewarded but also precarious. A talent is worth very little if you can't monetize it. Nobody is overly worried where the other two work or will work but they don't need an approval of the masses to do their job.
BBDBB wrote: » I never realised we must stop learning at 21 after that no more education, by 21 all lives lessons must be learned and ingrained as behavioural patterns
mfceiling wrote: » And many hadn't. My father started his family at 23. Me at 30. My brother at 38. My neighbour at 18. What's the point again? Oh yeah....something, something you are an adult at 21 and should have made all your mistakes by then.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Of course no married man would ever disrespect a woman or do anything stupid or make a mistake.
NAGDEFI wrote: » Twenty two. Many men had started rearing a family at that age..
NAGDEFI wrote: » The easy way out is 'the mob'. The pro Jacko crowd are a 'mob' too. People are entitled to judge whether these men are mysogynistic blackguards who aren't fit to represent their country. Children imitate these guys so much. You need some sort of standards.Yeah 60% of the country are a mob.. BS. And the 30-40% are enlightened..
NAGDEFI wrote: » Twenty two. Many men had started rearing a family at that age. Though i think Olding is the best of the lot of them. Only my opinion but i find the other fella very arrogant.
tritium wrote: » joe40 wrote: » I would actually agree with that, but the thing is that advice is given all the time. Parents give that advice to their kids, schools give loads of advice around dangers of alcohol and drugs and the likelihood of high risk behavior including sexual behaviour that you may regret. Boys and girls are told this constantly. Linking behaviour advice to actual events is problematic, it is never the victims fault in any crime. Comparing this to road safety is not a valid comparison, you are responsible when trying to minimise accidents. Crime including rape is never an accident. I never linked this to a crime. Whether we like it or not there was technically no crime here. At the end of this non- crime there are however five victims all of whom believe they told the truth and were wronged. That’s not really a great outcome is it? Well and good saying it’s given all the time. Why isn’t it working so. Why are so many young men and women getting smashed and doing dumb things? And oddly it’s the same dumb things the generation before did. Maybe we should try the message a different way?
joe40 wrote: » I would actually agree with that, but the thing is that advice is given all the time. Parents give that advice to their kids, schools give loads of advice around dangers of alcohol and drugs and the likelihood of high risk behavior including sexual behaviour that you may regret. Boys and girls are told this constantly. Linking behaviour advice to actual events is problematic, it is never the victims fault in any crime. Comparing this to road safety is not a valid comparison, you are responsible when trying to minimise accidents. Crime including rape is never an accident.
BBDBB wrote: » narcolepsy its a terrible condition to live with
Stheno wrote: » And this is where i have that conflict. Im in my forties and twenty years ago worked in an environment that was male dominated and primarily male dominated. You now would not believe some comments that were laughed at that now would be grounds for a very large payout. I spoke to a conservative male colleague from the
tretorn wrote: » Olding was twenty two, just saying.
BBDBB wrote: » Are we really going to punish people for the rest of their career for mistakes made when you are young??
joe40 wrote: » I have been told that Ulster rugby club would have quite a strong "christian ethos" I'm not sure if that is true don't follow rugby that closely.
Muahahaha wrote: » If they were 17 or 18 that would hold. But they were 24 when this happened. In society we celebrate 21st birthdays as a coming of age, i.e. you are an adult now. They were well past 21, this "they are only young lads" argument does not wash, they are more than old enough to be responsible for their actions and should be held accountable.
NAGDEFI wrote: » You're dying to have a cut off the RC Francie but you won't mention Puritanism at all? Easy target. And this invisible 'mob', easy target. This has NOTHING to do with abortion.
NAGDEFI wrote: » Very interesting Stheno. In an ideal world i hope they play for Ulster and Ireland again and grow up. But i think a certain time period of a break is needed to rehabilitate them as men.
Faugheen wrote: » These men are two public figures and their conduct is held to a higher standard (rightly or wrongly) than the average Joe Soap. What was meant to be a private conversation got out in public because they left a woman distressed, bleeding and in hysterics. That is all their fault. No one else.
