Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

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?

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.....

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.

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!

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.

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

Yeah_Right

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

The victim's name?

What victim?

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.

CommandoJack

Yeah_Right wrote: »

JP Liz V1 wrote: »

The victim's name?

What victim?

yeah, people are STILL being libellous numpties.
Mods should just do a blanket FindAndReplace and stick "alleged" in front of every instance of "rape", "rapist", "victim" etc across the whole site at this rate.

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

How dare you. You know nothing of my son and his friends.

meeeeh wrote: »

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.

I have to say, the leap and twist here from my post is actually quite impressive.

What on earth are you on about with regard to "as bad as I claim"? I mean that boys and girls of 16 are doing more than just 'petty stuff', i.e. sex.

I said the poster would be surprised by what she found on her son's mobile in that regard, but maybe he isn't the average teen/is a saint.

What on earth has that got to do with being dehumanised or despised?!
Who is being dismissed? Have I called anyone names?

I said both the complainant and the accused were old enough to make decisions.

How you thought that your response was proportionate to any of that, is mind boggling.

Please read my posts a little more carefully before going off on one.

Mrsmum wrote: »

How dare you. You know nothing of my son and his friends.

Oh wind your neck in. Are you seriously going to tell me you know to what degree your sons friends are sexually active, or what's on their mobiles..?!

Never mind your son's friends, do you really think he's going to be keeping you up to date on his activities in that regard?!

goz83

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.

We all know that there are immature 19 year olds as well as mature 19 year olds. The same goes for 24 year olds. And it's often splurted that women mature more quickly than men. 19 to 24 in any case is not a big gap at all. Women tend to go for older guys in my experience as they consider guys their own age to be immature.

Maybe the complainant thought she was landing herself a famous boyfriend? Maybe that's why she was upset afterwards? Comparing your 16 year old son to a 19 year old is a stark contrast. At 19, they are legally allowed to go out and party and they have moved beyond the school uniform stage, so it's not an apt comparison. One of my sons is going on 15 and I wouldn't be making any comparisons between him and some 19 year old who got drunk and went home to a celeb after party.

Total double standards about the age thing too. Time and time again it's ah they're just boys being boys, young lads bla bla bla but when you point out she was five years younger than Paddy Jackson, the response is she was old enough. I didn't say PJ was ancient, I said he is ancient in comparison to her in years and in experience I dare say. At that stage of your life a 19 yr old thinks a 24 year old is practically middle aged. And in a class of 100 16 year old, how many are actually having sex. Not half as many as people like to think and no that doesn't mean all those who aren't are saints. Some right idiots on here.

meeeeh

givyjoe wrote: »

What on earth has that got to do with being dehumanised or despised?!
Who is being dismissed? Have I called anyone names?

Women being called sluts is minimised, it's almost a term of endearment according to some. Then you have all the lovley words as shrill, feminiazi, harpies. I don't know if you used those words neither I care but they are littered all over the thread. It's part of the attitude when women are considered as only an object not a subject with their own thoughts, desires and opinions.

Yeah_Right

I'm probably going to get lambasted for this opinion but here goes.

I think the guys did nothing wrong. They went out got drunk, picked up some girls, had a one night stand (that escalated into a threesome) and then bragged and talked **** about it the next day with their mates. I have been involved in similar situations 100s of times through my teens, my twenties and into my thirties. Though nowhere near as many threesomes as Jackson!! It's not about disrespecting women or hating women. It's making light of the whole incident. They're never going to see her again. It's history. They're telling yarns. They wouldn't speak like that about female family members, friends, colleagues, wives or girlfriends but they're not talking about a woman they know. They're talking about a ONS. I'm not sure if I'm explaining the mentality that well.

I think the issue is Ireland (and I'm including NI in this instance) is very conservative and prudish when it comes to sex. My view is obviously coloured by the fact that I am from a country with a far more liberal view on sex and talking about sex. Irish people get embarrassed or shocked quite easily over conversations about sex in mixed company. Other nationalities don't. (This is my experience and no I haven't done a study to back it up)

Some people might argue that these guys are role models. Yes they're sporting role models. Parents need to make sure their kids have a variety of role models to inspire them and not just blindly follow one or two. Speaking of role models, could Una Mullaly (sp?), Louise O'Neill and Ruth Coppinger be considered role models for girls and young women in Ireland? Look at what they have been saying recently. Would you want your daughters talking/behaving like that?

I think BBDBB said it well. They've been punished enough. Unfortunately I think they will end up having to move overseas. Probably to France but I would love to see them head to NZ or Australia.

My final point in this rambling post. The most disgusting thing to come out of this is that Jackson doesn't appear to wash his bedding that often. He's regularly bringing women (and his mates) into his bed, he needs to change his sheets more often. Gross.

givyjoe wrote: »

Oh wind your neck in. Are you seriously going to tell me you know to what degree your sons friends are sexually active, or what's on their mobiles..?!

Never mind your son's friends, do you really think he's going to be keeping you up to date on his activities in that regard?!

I know better than you do anyway. Fair enough if you and all your class had sex at 16. That's your problem.

meeeeh

Yeah_Right wrote: »

They wouldn't speak like that about female family members, friends, colleagues, wives or girlfriends but they're not talking about a woman they know. They're talking about a ONS.

Ah that is ok then as long as they don't call their mother or sister a slut it's fine.

Mrsmum wrote: »

Total double standards about the age thing too. Time and time again it's ah they're just boys being boys, young lads bla bla bla but when you point out she was five years younger than Paddy Jackson, the response is she was old enough. I didn't say PJ was ancient, I said he is ancient in comparison to her in years and in experience I dare say. At that stage of your life a 19 yr old thinks a 24 year old is practically middle aged. And in a class of 100 16 year old, how many are actually having sex. Not half as many as people like to think and no that doesn't mean all those who aren't are saints. Some right idiots on here.

Are you really saying that’s the double standard you’re seeing here?

To be clear I was the first poster to really raise that at 19 she was also old enough to be responsible. That was in response to a large number of posters on the one hand playing the “ poor little girl, she was only nonnneetteeennn” life be and in the same breath excoriating the four young men as “ they’re men now they should be grown up”

There’s a double standard here alright when it comes to expected responsibility, just not the one you’re seeing.

[Deleted User]

Yeah_Right wrote: »

......... Though nowhere near as many threesomes as Jackson!! ...................

Has something come into the public domain about this?

Mrsmum wrote: »

I know better than you do anyway. Fair enough if you and all your class had sex at 16. That's your problem.

Thank you for proving my point regarding your head being in the sand.

What on earth do you know about the sexual activity of your son's 16 year old friends?! Why on earth would they tell you anything relating to it?!

Yeah_Right wrote: »

I'm probably going to get lambasted for this opinion but here goes.

I think the guys did nothing wrong. They went out got drunk, picked up some girls, had a one night stand (that escalated into a threesome) and then bragged and talked **** about it the next day with their mates. I have been involved in similar situations 100s of times through my teens, my twenties and into my thirties. Though nowhere near as many threesomes as Jackson!! It's not about disrespecting women or hating women. It's making light of the whole incident. They're never going to see her again. It's history. They're telling yarns. They wouldn't speak like that about female family members, friends, colleagues, wives or girlfriends but they're not talking about a woman they know. They're talking about a ONS. I'm not sure if I'm explaining the mentality that well.

I think the issue is Ireland (and I'm including NI in this instance) is very conservative and prudish when it comes to sex. My view is obviously coloured by the fact that I am from a country with a far more liberal view on sex and talking about sex. Irish people get embarrassed or shocked quite easily over conversations about sex in mixed company. Other nationalities don't. (This is my experience and no I haven't done a study to back it up)

Some people might argue that these guys are role models. Yes they're sporting role models. Parents need to make sure their kids have a variety of role models to inspire them and not just blindly follow one or two. Speaking of role models, could Una Mullaly (sp?), Louise O'Neill and Ruth Coppinger be considered role models for girls and young women in Ireland? Look at what they have been saying recently. Would you want your daughters talking/behaving like that?

I think BBDBB said it well. They've been punished enough. Unfortunately I think they will end up having to move overseas. Probably to France but I would love to see them head to NZ or Australia.

My final point in this rambling post. The most disgusting thing to come out of this is that Jackson doesn't appear to wash his bedding that often. He's regularly bringing women (and his mates) into his bed, he needs to change his sheets more often. Gross.

So would you consider yourself a slut or a legend ?

Grayson

Lucy8080 wrote: »

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.

What exactly are your suspicions and why do you think anyone would put themselves through what she did.

Personally I think they raped her. I think they got of because the jury were directed to only find them guilty if they were certain that the defendants knew they were raping her. Which is ridiculous.

meeeeh wrote: »

Women being called sluts is minimised, it's almost a term of endearment according to some. Then you have all the lovley words as shrill, feminiazi, harpies. I don't know if you used those words neither I care but they are littered all over the thread. It's part of the attitude when women are considered as only an object not a subject with their own thoughts, desires and opinions.

Do you think men have been dehumanized on this thread and in this wider debate? Honest question based on (amongst others) the following things flying about

Rambling Rape culture accusations
Misogynist
Rape apologist
One poster being called a rapist
MenRTrash posters being condoned
Crude words by one gender being ignored
The four men’s looks being ridiculed by a poster on this thread

If not, can you maybe tell me why you think that’s different or ok?

tritium wrote: »

Are you really saying that’s the double standard you’re seeing here?

To be clear I was the first poster to really raise that at 19 she was also old enough to be responsible. That was in response to a large number of posters on the one hand playing the “ poor little girl, she was only nonnneetteeennn” life be and in the same breath excoriating the four young men as “ they’re men now they should be grown up”

There’s a double standard here alright when it comes to expected responsibility, just not the one you’re seeing.

I think it works both way to be fair but the fact remains if anyone is defending them because of their age, they should have a look at her age.

irishproduce

What's this now about Craig Gilroy text?
Now the case is over, what did his text say?

Edit - ignore, I found it. Poor choice of words from CG

Mrsmum wrote: »

I think it works both way to be fair but the fact remains if anyone is defending them because of their age, they should have a look at her age.

But surely the reverse is also appropriate. Anyone saying they’re men and should be more mature must apply the same standard of maturity to the lady

givyjoe wrote: »

Thank you for proving my point regarding your head being in the sand.

What on earth do you know about the sexual activity of your son's 16 year old friends?! Why on earth would they tell you anything relating to it?!

Another inane comment.

Grayson wrote: »

What exactly are your suspicions and why do you think anyone would put themselves through what she did.

Personally I think they raped her. I think they got of because the jury were directed to only find them guilty if they were certain that the defendants knew they were raping her. Which is ridiculous.

My my, you do realise that is the standard by which all criminal cases are decided? i.e. beyond a reasonable doubt.

So you think it's ridiculous that the jury shouldn't convict the men if they weren't certain that the men were guilty of the crimes they were charged with?!