nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

ancapailldorcha

This thread is for continuing the discussion of the recent Belfast rape trial. The old thread can be found here.

Thanks,
The AH mods.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

meeeeh

givyjoe wrote: »

Come off it, ancient? There're both old enough to make decisions for themselves.

Also if you really think you 16 = petty stuff, I'd suggest getting a hold of your son's mobile and browsing history. Head.. in.. sand

Well if all boys from 16 years old are as bad as you claim then it's imperative the behaviour of four lads isn't encouraged. I don't want to live in a society where women are dehumanized and despised. This thread is a perfect example how women who raise their head and complain are treated. They are dismissed, called names, laughed at and so on... And you wonder why there is strong reaction to the whole trial.

Yeah_Right

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

The victim's name?

What victim?

givyjoe

Mrsmum wrote: »

I actually think 19 is quite young, I have a 16 year old son so I know the scene at that age and it's fairly petty stuff. (Always the odd one having sex at 14 but in general.) At 18 I would imagine they start playing grown up games so imo a 19 year old could be fairly inexperienced and I think that girl showed every bit of her inexperience BUT a 24 year old, male or female is well out of the blocks. PJ had five long years on her so if she is old, he is ancient and well past the juvenile stage.

Come off it, ancient? There're both old enough to make decisions for themselves.

Also if you really think you 16 = petty stuff, I'd suggest getting a hold of your son's mobile and browsing history. Head.. in.. sand

Mrsmum

tritium wrote: »

19 isn’t?

I actually think 19 is quite young, I have a 16 year old son so I know the scene at that age and it's fairly petty stuff. (Always the odd one having sex at 14 but in general.) At 18 I would imagine they start playing grown up games so imo a 19 year old could be fairly inexperienced and I think that girl showed every bit of her inexperience BUT a 24 year old, male or female is well out of the blocks. PJ had five long years on her so if she is old, he is ancient and well past the juvenile stage.

Lucy8080

If those who are protesting about an alleged "victim" in this case want to take a real stand, go fund a civil suit!

My suspicion is that in a civil case the alleged "victim" will be exposed to a lot of other "alleged " stuff, that could not be presented in court.

The price of such will be the rugby lads out of the game for another year or two, and a lot more exposure of the complainant.

I've seen well signed petitions asking for the I.R.F.U. to investigate the behaviour of two defendand's who aren't even under contract to the I.R.F.U.

I've seen folks ,after the acquittal,refer to "rapists" in relations to P.J. and S.O. (that calmed down a lot when they were made aware of the consequences).

I've seen folks paint a picture of "blood" and "upset" without ever balancing the argument around the possibilities of where the "blood" and "upset" stemmed from. Or, the time-line of the "upset" and when different folks, who acknowledged upset, became aware of it.

I've seen people who try to draw attention to the evidence/verdict, being called "rape apologists".

All online, a lot supporting protest.

All with dwindling numbers as they come to consciousness of the difference between what they think they know, and the facts.

Then there is the "poll" that says 2/3rds don't want to see these "acquitted men" back in the jersey.

Did that poll ask those folks, who were canvassed, to explain their understanding of the case? Did they correct any misunderstandings? I doubt it.

The texts seem to be a big thing here.

The "worst text"(apparently), was sent by a guy who wasn't up in court on any charges.or in the house on the night.

Olding's (22yr old, possibly the youngest ) text was in response to a question,silliness (maybe) to impress older peers.

Jackson only wrote one (seemingly offensive) text,but again,in response to a conversation he didn't start. I was under impression that we stay out of people's sex/private lives .None of our business, ask an s.j.w.

Deconstruct the case/evidence, and there are holes everywhere in the claimants case.

Then we have the Bank of Ireland/sponsorship in the moral mix. Jesus Wept.

How many folks have been thrown out of their homes ,or ended up 6 feet under the last decade because of the Banks .How many ordinary staff in those banks,on ordinary wages, have been working their asses off to clear the mess created?

How many of those staff (in B.O.I.) have been doing the same jobs that others on higher pay grades have been doing, to clear the mess, but have seen no reward in their pay packet?

Barristers /Bankers, Sports stars/celebrities/ mother Theresa's of the V.I.P. lounge, twitter mobs,protesters.......These, ladies and gentlemen...are our sons and daughters!

Maybe ,there's a lesson in all of this that will help us ,somehow.

Telpis!

flatty

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

flatty wrote: »

Joe schmidt was perfectly happy having other players back who had picked up a drunk lady, and "spit roasted" her, apparently whilst one of their pals was trying to record it.
The hypocrisy and moralising on this thread, and in irish society in general, is staggering. Its no wonder we ended up with the magdalene laundries.

Did he support them though? He never made any comment on this, and what happened with those guys did not result in a court case. That's the difference-those two didn't end up in court accused of a crime. Despite the acquittal, too many questions have emerged since then-and the Whatsapp messages amongst other things left many people with questions.

How you can compare the Magdalene Laundries to a court case I find bizarre. In fact, in 'ye olden days' it was the girl at the center of the case who would have ended up in the Laundries-not the two guys.

In fact, many rape victims (not that I'm alleging the woman at the center of the case was or was not raped) would have been sent there-as they were seen to be 'leading the men on'.

Men had their own problems-but 'Magdalene Laundries', for the most part, wasn't one of them.

Institutions like the magdalene laundries, or the boys home in letterfrack, were facilitated by a public mindset of public shame and humiliation of those guilty of no crime, and those denouncing the victims loudest had plenty of skeletons in the closet. The mindset of shrill finger pointing is little different.
The general tone of many has been that these young men, innocent in the eyes of the law, should not be allowed to play for Ireland as they disrespected women.
Two currently hugely lauded international players the same people have no problem with.
One, bizarrely was then dropped for having the temerity to move.
Anyhow, as you were.

tritium

flatty wrote: »

Joe schmidt was perfectly happy having other players back who had picked up a drunk lady, and "spit roasted" her, apparently whilst one of their pals was trying to record it.
The hypocrisy and moralising on this thread, and in irish society in general, is staggering. Its no wonder we ended up with the magdalene laundries.

You mean two players who allegedly had a consensual threesome after a night out?

That has to be what you mean because what you’re suggesting there would be very close to libelous.

As I recall it came out because tthe young lady in that case was on Facebook boasting about her exploits. I’m sure that must make her a misandrist with terrible attitudes to men.....

tritium

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Well if he had a young child to be fed it might knock some of the urge to be with the best mate every minute of the day.

I'm making the point 22 is old enough to have cop on.

19 isn’t?

tritium

NAGDEFI wrote: »

As Muhaha says when you think of men.. you think of Rory Best, O'Connell, O'Driscoll, Sexton etc.

Eventually most men settle down with a partner/wife like Cronin, Earls, Sexton, Best.

These boys eventually need to grow up have families, provide leadership. I don't think it's feasible to be having 3 somes with your best mate for the rest of your life. Unless we want a generation of Peter Pan's exaggerating they're sex lives and literally not being able to do anything without the best mate beside you.

Grow a pair chaps and stand on your own two feet.

Rory best? As in #notmycaptain Rory best?

I thought he was the devil incarnate still?

Clearly I didn’t get the memo......

Homer

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

That "duty of care" bit would cover it.
Its a massive consideration.
As much as i dont want my girls raped, i dont want him to rape some other dad's little girl.

Isn’t that what they say about having kids. Have a boy and you have one mickey to worry about.. have a girl and you have to worry about every mickey in the world :pac:

*just adding some lighthearted banter to an overheated thread*

mfceiling

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Yes if they were thought some morals when they were younger it would help future behaviour. FFS your posts are so dim! You can't even make the connection with how the lessons taught in youth apply later in life.

I love the way you're following every post of mine. A bit shaken, are we by the cut and thrust of debate?

You're some sad case. My posts are dim? Compared to your "witty" movie titles?
Staying up until after 1 in the morning posting on boards. Sorry I had to go to bed because I have work today.
Shaken by the cut and thrust of debate? Didn't realise you were Jeremy Paxman.

facehugger99

flatty wrote: »

Its no wonder we ended up with the magdalene laundries.

And the prize for non sequitur of the day goes to......

RabbleRouser2k

flatty wrote: »

Joe schmidt was perfectly happy having other players back who had picked up a drunk lady, and "spit roasted" her, apparently whilst one of their pals was trying to record it.
The hypocrisy and moralising on this thread, and in irish society in general, is staggering. Its no wonder we ended up with the magdalene laundries.

Did he support them though? He never made any comment on this, and what happened with those guys did not result in a court case. That's the difference-those two didn't end up in court accused of a crime. Despite the acquittal, too many questions have emerged since then-and the Whatsapp messages amongst other things left many people with questions.

How you can compare the Magdalene Laundries to a court case I find bizarre. In fact, in 'ye olden days' it was the girl at the center of the case who would have ended up in the Laundries-not the two guys.

In fact, many rape victims (not that I'm alleging the woman at the center of the case was or was not raped) would have been sent there-as they were seen to be 'leading the men on'.

Men had their own problems-but 'Magdalene Laundries', for the most part, wasn't one of them.

flatty

Muahahaha wrote: »

Je suis le Mob :cool:

66% of the Irish public dont want them in an Irish jersey again. Let the Ulster lads have them back if they can handle lowering the standards of their club that much that they take the self proclaimed "legends" back. Luckily for the rest of us Joe Schmidt is one of the most intelligent rugby managers in the world and will not be having them within an asses roar of another Irish cap. The Irish public wouldnt stand for it, Joe knows it, the IRFU know it and the sponsors know it.

Joe schmidt was perfectly happy having other players back who had picked up a drunk lady, and "spit roasted" her, apparently whilst one of their pals was trying to record it.
The hypocrisy and moralising on this thread, and in irish society in general, is staggering. Its no wonder we ended up with the magdalene laundries.

RabbleRouser2k

Been reading through few posts here, just want to add my two cents.

As for Bill Clinton-you can say 'he got away with it'...but did he really? He lied under oath in front of a committee. There were allegations of worse made against him (rape and assault), and it's never been forgotten-barring current feminists and people who were all 'Hillary for President'. Much of the reason it was never forgotten was the internet had made it's way to most people's homes, so there was constant coverage. It wasn't just TV now.
People tried to say Trump was the worse candidate, because of what he said. But Bill lied before a committee.
And Hillary made awful comments about the women accusing him of horrific things, and aggravated rape survivors.

By the time Hillary went for President-the Clinton brand was toxic, with way too much mud attached. She was so bad, it made it easy for Trump.

Mel Gibson-yeah, not convicted for anti-semetic comments, or the 'raped by a pack of n*****s' tape. Was convicted for beating up his ex. Plead no contest. And yet has a career, was oscar nommed for his last movie...yeah, hollywood is a sick place. Metoo is just a bandaid on a festering wound.

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.

I never understood that mentality-I know you were pointing it out as hypocrisy, and rightly so-but I never got it. I feel like saying 'right, you're grown up now-no more dumb mistakes' is foolish. Be dumb, but don't hurt people. (Not referencing the case, just a life goal).

(I also know people who were married at 20, kids at 22. Makes me grateful I chose to never have kids-tho I might change my mind. Someone I know was sure and certain him and the wife would never have children. Then she had a healthy baby boy at 43-everyone was happy for them, cos they are genuinely nice people).

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.

A tad unfair. I mean most of us learned treat people with respect from being kids-it's the first thing you learn. Not referencing Jackson and co-just referencing things in general. But many people...they have to take time to learn that. They have to make mistakes, figure things out...there's far too much 'keeping up with the joneses'. We're not all the same. I would think the language used by them was something a teenager would use, even at 17 or 18 you'd be calling em idiots.

The recent revelations about the blood on the sheets has added to questions now-Jackson has stated he would not explain where the blood came from (not required to, since it wasn't his or the complainant) but it threw up more questions. Like who's it did belong to, and how did it get there. (Best case scenario-dog or cat got a cut or some other injury, Girlfriend stayed over during time of the month. Worst case scenario-similar incident happened before which paints Jackson in a darker light).

Tbh, the 'rape list' in Cork is not related to the situation in the North-but it's going to weigh on sponsor's minds (you can argue it's unfair-but life's unfair. Even if it wouldn't surprise me it was a stunt).
This will further add to the headache that sponsors will have-having to look at that and say 'oh no, these guys have to become an example'-unfortunately, sports people are meant to be role models. If this behaviour is seen in a positive light-it's going to cause problems in sport.

Look at that Irish boxer who was sent home from the Olympics in shame because he used a banned substance. He harmed nobody but himself, but has been shamed since, and banned from the sport.
You can say 'ah,people make mistakes' but unfortunately, when you represent your country, you're wearing your country-if you screw up, it looks bad on everyone. Yes, they were not found guilty, but the recent lifting of the ban on reporting threw out more questions-with too many non-answers.

jimmycrackcorm

Faugheen wrote:

I'm getting the blood from the photographs of Jackson's bed that were shown to the jury (the ones that were airbrushed).

FrancieBrady wrote:

Particularly interested in the Whasapp messages where they 'joked' about the bed 'covered in her blood' and her 'running away crying'.

Faugheen wrote:

Her blood was on his sheets. Fact.

The sheet blood was excluded from the evidence because it wasn't hers.

NAGDEFI

mfceiling wrote: »

When they were younger? They are 25 and 26 FFS.

Who has them on pedestals?

Yes if they were thought some morals when they were younger it would help future behaviour. FFS your posts are so dim! You can't even make the connection with how the lessons taught in youth apply later in life.

I love the way you're following every post of mine. A bit shaken, are we by the cut and thrust of debate?

NAGDEFI

givyjoe wrote: »

I'm merely mildly irritated by the sh1t puns! Not offended.

I put a lot of work into those:D

givyjoe

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Messing Joe. Being silly. Apologies.

I actually think i've been on the thread too long this evening and basically went a bit silly.

Again apologies, and nothing personal at all.

I'm merely mildly irritated by the sh1t puns! Not offended.

NAGDEFI

givyjoe wrote: »

Do you have an actual point to make?! I mean are you drunk that you've felt the need to make what, 4 posts, because of one incorrectly spelled word?!

Mad ted.

Messing Joe. Being silly. Apologies.

I actually think i've been on the thread too long this evening and basically went a bit silly.

Again apologies, and nothing personal at all.

givyjoe

NAGDEFI wrote: »

What sort of phone do you have Joe? Is the spelling on Turkyish?:D

Do you have an actual point to make?! I mean are you drunk that you've felt the need to make what, 4 posts, because of one incorrectly spelled word?!

Mad ted.

Roger Hassenforder

Mrsmum wrote: »

Oh believe me it doesn't but I still don't see that you are giving any advice to junior on how his 'fun night out' could find him ending up in court as the defendant. Is that not a consideration at all ?

That "duty of care" bit would cover it.
Its a massive consideration.
As much as i dont want my girls raped, i dont want him to rape some other dad's little girl.

NAGDEFI

On a serious note history is a funny thing.

In July 1916 thousands of Ulster boys from 15 years up were sacrificing themselves on the Somme.

In July 2016, i don't have to fill in the blanks.

We really don't know how good we have it. And it won't always be like this if history teaches us anything.

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A 'mob' took to the streets with the expressed intention of trying to undermine the verdict. #ibelieveher on Twitter and FB organised the fecking thing.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what is acceptable slang for a sexually promiscuous woman.
As I said, my feelings about one woman does not for a minute mean I feel that way about all women and as I said they didn't seem to mind being in the company of sexually promiscuous young women. So where they even being derogatory?

Maybe they could call themselves sluts and her a legend.

NAGDEFI

givyjoe wrote: »

Can you please just imagine me inserting the rolleyes emoji.. on the mobile here. I haven't edited anything.

Your comedy act needs some serious work.

What sort of phone do you have Joe? Is the spelling on Turkyish?:D

NAGDEFI

givyjoe wrote: »

What in the fc.uk are you in about? Any chance you can stick all your sh1t movie titles in one post and be done with it?!

Give ut ip for Joe he's un the house and rocking the threed with hos spilling! Up Joe! Sorry Ut Joe!

JP Liz V1

irishproduce wrote: »

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

The victim's name?

BBDBB

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A 'mob' took to the streets with the expressed intention of trying to undermine the verdict. #ibelieveher on Twitter and FB organised the fecking thing.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what is acceptable slang for a sexually promiscuous woman.
As I said, my feelings about one woman does not for a minute mean I feel that way about all women and as I said they didn't seem to mind being in the company of sexually promiscuous young women. So where they even being derogatory?

Can I appeal to the mods for special dispensation to use the "Yor Ma!" line in response??

ah g'wan

g'wan

g'wan

G'wan!

givyjoe

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Ah Joe you've hurt my feelings..

By the way you spelt 'on' wrongly, it's not spelt 'in'. See when you get thick you can't spell 2 letter words:D:D

Oh i see you edited your post Joe. Aren't you clever!

Can you please just imagine me inserting the rolleyes emoji.. on the mobile here. I haven't edited anything.

Your comedy act needs some serious work.

NAGDEFI

givyjoe wrote: »

What in the fc.uk are you in about? Any chance you can stick all your sh1t movie titles in one post and be done with it?!

Ah Joe you've hurt my feelings..

By the way you spelt 'on' wrongly, it's not spelt 'in'. See when you get thick you can't spell 2 letter words:D:D

'What in the fcuk are you in about'? What part of the country do you come from Joe?