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.
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.
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
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".
FrancieBrady wrote: » Fed up dealing with hysterical sensationalism about this case. I'll just ignore it from now on Grayson.
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.
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.
FrancieBrady wrote: » There is a massive assumption in there that what they were doing was not consensual.
Muahahaha wrote: » I think posters on here who do not wish to see them play for Ireland again have been very measured in this discussion. It only seem to be Jacksons and Oldings supporters who are engaging in the name calling on this thread. It reflects badly on them as name calling is the first refuge of someone who feels they are losing an argument. It is also reflective of the fact they cannot see (or dont want to see) any problems whatsoever with Jackson and Olding pulling on the Irish jersey again. I suppose if you are willing to ignore the players dreadful behaviour it shouldnt be all that surprising that you would lower the tone of the debate to childish name calling and pigeon holing. It is the stuff you would expect in a school yard to be perfectly honest.
FrancieBrady wrote: » 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. I don't think any of the players supporters have taken to the streets trying to undermine the verdict of a jury in another jurisdiction. #ibelieveher Mob, is a perfect description.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I don't think any of the players supporters have taken to the streets trying to undermine the verdict of a jury in another jurisdiction. #ibelieveher Mob, is a perfect description.
Muahahaha wrote: » I think posters on here who do not wish to see them play for Ireland again have been very measured in this discussion.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Here's what he said. Show me the evidence that said the 'bed was covered in her blood' Show me the evidence that showed she 'ran away in tears' Show me the evidence that they 'joked about' the above the next day,
FrancieBrady wrote: » I was called a rapist on this thread. Just saying.
Muahahaha wrote: » Not sure where you are reading that Francie, can you point it out? Because I am only referring to how they treated and spoke about that girl, I accept the juries verdict and always have.
Faugheen wrote: » 1. Photographs that were shown to the jury. 2. Rory Harrison 3. The WhatsApp messages. They treated that girl like **** and they boasted about their conquest calling themselves top shaggers, legends and talking about spitroasting and other precious secrets about sluts getting f*cked. All of these are facts, Francie. Show me the evidence that proves otherwise.
FrancieBrady wrote: » It was consensual. How do you disrespect someone in that? Group sex is not my thing, but I would never want to be in anyone's bedroom moralising about what they are doing.
Faugheen wrote: » Because you said it's ok to perform sex acts on sleeping people and that they can't withdraw consent until they wake up. I admit I went too far in calling you a rapist and deleted my post a while after, so for that I apologise.
irishproduce wrote: » Only just learned your ones name this eve. A bit satisfying, only just to know all parties involved now
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.
Grayson wrote: » That behavior is very rapey though. If I work up with someones cock inside me I'd consider it rape.
Grayson wrote: » All of those facts are well known and were testified to in court. They have all been reported on. Honestly at this point I have to think that Francie is either willfully ignoring facts or he's just trolling.
Faugheen wrote: » Because you said it's ok to perform sex acts on sleeping people and that they can't withdraw consent until they wake up. I admit I went too far in calling you a rapist and deleted my post a while after, so for that I apologise. Doesn't take away from the fact that you feel the above is still ok. It was in the previous thread, btw. This is me holding my hands up and admitting I got something very wrong in what I said to you. Learn something from it and maybe you can accept that what these guys have done is completely unacceptable.
FrancieBrady wrote: » I will highlight the sensational bits in case you are having difficulty. Where does it say 'covered in her blood' Where did Harrison say 'she ran away in tears' Where are the Whasapp messages where they joke about 'covering the bed in her blood and her running away in tears'.
tretorn wrote: » Where are you getting your facts from, you werent in the house. Dara Florence was and not only that but she testified that she saw three adults in a bed having fun, she laughed at the scene and told her friend she saw a threesome. She told the police the same story and she never wavered from that, she was asked to confirm her story in court under oath and she repeated it word for word. Neither Jackson or Olding posted the text about sluts getting ****ed, for the nth time a friend of theirs texted this in a private whatsapp group. People are texting stuff like this as we speak but they wont get caught unless their phones end up being used as evidence. Now, can we please stop with the making up of stuff to suit a vindictive moralistic viewpoint.
