Faugheen wrote: » 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 ****.
BBDBB wrote: » 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
Faugheen wrote: » 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?
Faugheen wrote: » 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.
tretorn wrote: » Luckily the jury had access to all the evidence and they werent biased so based their facts on evidence and not on twitter snippets. Thank God for the Rule Of law and the right to a fair trial.
tretorn wrote: » You are getting your "facts" from the testimony of a witness who the jury didnt believe, her evidence didnt stack up and you cant jail people unless their guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt. If we didnt have a court of law anyone can make up wild allegations and then its he said, she said. Luckily for PJ and Olding there was an independent witness who was prepared to say what she saw. I feel very sorry for Dara F, she went out for a nights fun, didnt abuse alcohol and didnt head off to anyones bedroom. She didnt even know the woman who made the allegation and now her life has been completely upset by a mess someone else created. She has been very dignified and she doesnt deserve the abuse being heaped on her, she did her civic duty and told the truth, we need more fine young women like Dara Florence. It should have been Dara Florence who got the praise from the PPS after the court case.
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.
Faugheen wrote: » What has this got to do with the verdict? I've said to you and everyone else umpteen times that their verdict is the right one based on the evidence and reasonable doubt. However, it does not mean that there was no blood of hers on his bed, that Rory Harrison didn't say she was upset, or that they didn't boast about being top shaggers and precious secrets. Everything I have said was presented as evidence. A 'not guilty' verdict doesn't mean the evidence suddenly no longer exists when it comes to analysing their behaviour that night. Jesus Christ it's actually f*cking painful having to spell it out to everyone. I made a point that people just go back to the verdict as a way of shutting the conversation down. We're not talking about the verdict anymore. We're talking about their behaviour of which Paddy Jackson said the reaction to was 'fully justified'.
NAGDEFI wrote: » A real modern day Florence Nightingale:D
Mrsmum wrote: » 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",
FrancieBrady wrote: » Semantics? It was complete and utter sensationalist nonsense and you know it. The jury clearly did not think she was in hysterics because she was raped. End of. Your opinion is of no relevance. They boasted about having a good time. Not one of them boasted about treating anyone like ****. Your or Grayson's moral indignation will not make it so.
upandcumming wrote: » Both sides of the discussion have performed poorly and there has been alot of posts way off the mark, but neither side have been 'measured'. Just take a look at the first thread on this topic. While I am firmly in the 'Jacksons and Oldings supporters' camp, I feel that there is an overreaction to the messages. That is not to say I do not think they are disrespectful, they are disrespectful. Just because I don't agree with you or the posters on the other side of the discussion, does not mean I cannot or don't want to see the problems with the messages. Posts like this really doesn't do anything to reinforce your 'measured' description.
Faugheen wrote: » Who mentioned the word 'rape'? Their behaviour left her upset, which is acknowledged by three of the four defendants. This. Is. Fact. Her state leaving that house is undeniable whether you think a rape happened or not.
Faugheen wrote: » Who mentioned the word 'rape'? Their behaviour left her upset, which is acknowledged by three of the four defendants. This. Is. Fact. Again you're going back to the jury. I'm not talking about the verdict. I'm talking about he facts presented to this case which raise arguments over whether these two should be allowed play for Ireland again. Her state leaving that house is undeniable whether you think a rape happened or not.
tretorn wrote: » Dara didnt get to keep her anonymity or get to give evidence behind a screen either. As I said a very brave woman, her parents must be very proud of her.
Wrongway1985 wrote: » The definition of teenager is literally a person between 13-19 despite what a young cluainmhuire thought
tretorn wrote: » You are getting your "facts" from the testimony of a witness who the jury didnt believe, her evidence didnt stack up and you cant jail people unless their guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.
NAGDEFI wrote: » Who appointed you as adjudicator of the debate tonight?!!
NAGDEFI wrote: » I find it hard to take a lecture on debating from a lad called 'upandcumming':D
meeeeh wrote: » What do you suggest? A fight to the bitter end and then see which sides come on top. Anyway if they had any chance (and I don't think they did), a rape list in Cork school just put an end to it. The publicity would be completely damaging. Weather tgey like it or not tgey are the poster boys for attitude that needs to be challenged and eradicated.
FrancieBrady wrote: » And nobody ever left a drunken party upset? :rolleyes: We have nothing that proves why she was upset. She said it was because she was raped. She didn't convince the jury of that.
upandcumming wrote: » I'm not much of an adjudicator as I support a particular side. No lecture, simply a response to that poster's commentary on the debate. I also gave my thoughts on the messages and the reaction to them. Play the ball, not the man! :D
Faugheen wrote: » It doesn't matter why she was upset. Guilty or not guilty. We have it on record from three of the four defendants that it's accepted she was upset. Even if the encounter was consensual, she was still treated like **** and was upset by how the night panned out. What more do you f*cking want?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
