Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Options
1…1011131516…108

Comments

  • Options
    #362
    BBDBB
    Registered Users Posts: 26,899 ✭✭✭✭BBDBB


    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.


    hang on, "not entitled"??

    The relationship of "adoration" of fans is a two way street

    The player (of most professional sports) raises his or her arms aloft in triumph at some victory or other and the crowd cheers and applauds in response. (Tennis, Golf, Football, Rugby, GAA, etc etc. The more significant the moment the more the crowd applaud and cheer. The player raises their game at that expectation. Its symbiotic, they feed off each other

    Its entirely an earned adulation, if the player doesnt perform, misses a chance, fails to prevent a score, the crowd let them know. This is true of every player in every sports team

    If a sportsperson is on the field and makes a howling error the crowd are more than capable and willing to express their disappointment and dissatisfaction with boos and shouts. They do at every sporting venue wherever spectators gather


    Let the public decide whether they are willing to let PJ and SO back into the Ulster and Ireland shirts by playing them and see if they are willing to pay to watch them


    If gates are down it shows that people aren't comfortable with them representing their province or country. If the crowd are on their back regarding their off field behaviour they will let them know.

    If you want your opportunity to shout your disapproval, then an Ulster game from the terraces is a perfect place for you to do so


  • Options
    #363
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,973 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.

    There is a massive assumption in there that what they were doing was not consensual.


  • Options
    #364
    Mrsmum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Mrsmum


    BBDBB wrote: »
    Fair point NAGDEFI

    we 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

    Imo playing for your country is an enormous honour which few people achieve and the supporters, indeed the whole country look on their team with such pride. Because I think you posted quite a reasonable post I am genuinely interested in whether you would have zero problem with them putting on the sacred green jersey & playing for Ireland considering you say their behaviour was unacceptable ? If you yourself have no problem but accept a substantial number of people are repelled by them, how do we let them back without giving the two fingers to those people, that critical mass of people, whose pride in the whole team would be sullied by their presence. How do we let them back without condoning their disgusting behaviours and attitude to women. Because it's kinda now at the point where as you said yourself "we each must defend the line of what we deem as acceptable",


  • Options
    #365
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #366
    NAGDEFI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭NAGDEFI


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Fed up dealing with hysterical sensationalism about this case. I'll just ignore it from now on Grayson.

    Did you ever hear the phrase Francie 'They're all out of step only Johnny'?:D

    Maybe when over half the country don't agree with you there might be some merit in their arguments. Ah no..couldn't be right, easier to believe i'm right and the rest of them are hysterics..


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #367
    Stheno
    Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 51,687 Mod ✭✭✭✭Stheno


    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.
    Im a rugby supporter, have a Leinster season ticket and in the past have literally arranged holidays around e.g. the Rugby World Cup

    I'm also female and played rugby in the nineties.

    I know the players have been found not guilty but frankly if i was lucky enough to go to an Irish squad training day I'm not sure it would sit well with me if they were there signing autographs


  • Options
    #368
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,613 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    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 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.


  • Options
    #369
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,973 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.
    Here's what he said.
    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.

    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,


  • Options
    #370
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,613 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    There is a massive assumption in there that what they were doing was not consensual.

    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.


  • Options
    #371
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    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.

    Or you make an honest effort to spell out your point to them and they reply with:

    '...but they were found not guilty.'

    Everyone else has moved past the verdict except for Jackson and Oldings supporters.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #372
    joe40
    Registered Users Posts: 3,811 ✭✭✭joe40


    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.
    That is the problem in your argument and I honestly can't work out whether it is deliberate deflection or not.
    There are people who publicly protested the verdict, I only know one or two and they are overall a comparatively small number and not that representative, but loud on social media.
    There are people that fully accept the verdict, possibly reached the same conclusion themselves, but believe the behaviour of these men was extremely poor when you view all the events together. They may or may not have a problem with the men representing their country again.
    These disparate groups of people are not some homogenous rabble of "feminazis" or "erstwhile catholics" (I did like that one though)
    I'm going with deliberate deflection you come across in other threads as reasonably intelligent.


  • Options
    #373
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,127 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    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.

    I think you need to look up the definition of mob. And look up the definition of undermine.

    There were protests across the country including in Belfast (which in case you didn't know is the same jurisdiction). Did any of the protests call for the verdict to be overturned? Did any call for a retrial?

    The protesters voiced their solidarity with the victim. They called for a change in the way trials are handled both here and in the north. They also criticised the reporting.

    Here's some links about the protests.

    https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/thousands-take-streets-ireland-ibelieveher-12275151

    http://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2018/03/29/news/rugby-rape-trial-i-believe-her-rallies-planned-across-ireland-1290667/

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5565141/Dublin-women-protest-clearing-international-rugby-players-accused-raping-teen.html

    https://thedebrief.co.uk/news/real-life/belfast-rape-trial-i-believe-her/

    There's a cross section of publications. None of them mention anyone trying to change the verdict.


  • Options
    #374
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,973 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.

    I was called a rapist on this thread. Just saying.


  • Options
    #375
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    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,

    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.


  • Options
    #376
    NAGDEFI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭NAGDEFI


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I was called a rapist on this thread. Just saying.

    That's not right Francie. None of arguing this evening have.


  • Options
    #377
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,973 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #378
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    I was called a rapist on this thread. Just saying.

    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.


  • Options
    #379
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,127 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    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.

    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.


  • Options
    #380
    irishproduce
    Registered Users Posts: 2,805 ✭✭✭irishproduce


    Only just learned your ones name this eve. A bit satisfying, only just to know all parties involved now :)


  • Options
    #381
    NAGDEFI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭NAGDEFI


    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.

    They way they spoke about the act my good man isn't sitting well with a lot of people. Ordinary people, not moralists or prudes. Ordinary sensible, easy going people feel a line was crossed. You don't feel the language was overboard and i respect that. But you need to respect that the people who don't share your view are not some sort of mob of dogs with rabies.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #382
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,973 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.
    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'.


  • Options
    #383
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,127 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    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.

    That behavior is very rapey though. If I woke up with someones cock inside me I'd consider it rape.


  • Options
    #384
    Grayson
    Registered Users Posts: 16,127 ✭✭✭✭Grayson


    irishproduce wrote: »
    Only just learned your ones name this eve. A bit satisfying, only just to know all parties involved now :)

    what the ****?


  • Options
    #385
    Mrsmum
    Registered Users Posts: 1,860 ✭✭✭Mrsmum


    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.

    At 22 and 24 you're a bit too hairy now to be acting like you still have all your growing up to do. By comparision she was 19.


  • Options
    #386
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    Grayson wrote: »
    That behavior is very rapey though. If I work up with someones cock inside me I'd consider it rape.

    That's because it is. You can't consent while you are asleep.


  • Options
    #387
    NAGDEFI
    Closed Accounts Posts: 755 ✭✭✭NAGDEFI


    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.

    I said this to Francie but i picture him as Mick the Bull Daly from the Savage Eye:D

    'Shur all the lads were doing was a bit of rideeeeeen'!


  • Options
    #388
    tretorn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭tretorn


    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.


    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.


  • Options
    #389
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 66,973 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.

    Apology accepted.

    A few young men joking about a drunken night of consensual sex is nothing to be proud of but does not warrant the very real punishment they and their families are getting.


  • Options
    #390
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    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'.

    So you're going on semantics now?

    Her blood was on his sheets. Fact.

    Harrison said in court that he saw she was upset at the top of the stairs. Fact.

    Harrison told Blane McIlroy that she was in hysterics.

    Whether they knew or not is actually irrelevant. They still treated a woman like **** and they boasted about treating said woman like ****.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #391
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    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.

    I'm getting my facts from the evidence and testimonies that were heard in court.

    Do you think I just plucked them out of my hole or something?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement