AudreyHepburn wrote: » I think we will all have to accept there was some blood on the sheets - how much I don’t know. But that doesn’t make it rape.
ArthurDayne wrote: » I'm not dictating to anyone on how they should feel -- nor am I saying that everyone should be like me. I am merely imploring people not to take the private comments that people make as being indicative of their true serious views. Imagine we enforced a world like that? A Dystopia of linguistic stringency where our every word at the dinner table or the pub is audited, scrutinised and interpreted as being utterly and completely indicative of what we believe and how we think people should be treated. Is that the world you want? If not, then ask yourself why not. Are we to live in a world where everyone is crucified at the altar of unobtainable moral perfection ?
meeeeh wrote: » I never said how men should feel when called misogynus, I said the word by itself is not a slur. That has nothing to do with my interpretation, that is dictionary definition.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » C) A misunderstanding - they genuinely believed she was consenting. She genuinely wasn’t and thought they knew but it wasn’t made clear D) it was consensual but she regrets it
tretorn wrote: » As for people who state they are fully sure their sons dont talk derogatorily about women, you can bet the parents of the teen boys in Cork who ticked female classes names also thought their sons were whiter than white too.
ArthurDayne wrote: » You were the one who made the sexist insinuation that, simply because I am a man, my opinions on this matter are invalid or less valuable to you. That makes you a hypocrite. You could have at least attempted to defend your use of the term 'mansplaining' but instead have chosen the easy way out with a petty swipe. I hope we can debate again sometime without you telling me that my gender renders my opinions of lesser worth to you. Instead, I can only extrapolate that you're somewhat irked at having your hypocrisy called out and thrown back at you.
tretorn wrote: » I wonder whose blood was airbrushed out. It wasnt the woman who made the allegations blood. She cant have bled much because I dont think there was blood on her jeans, I might be wrong about that, I thought it was only on her underwear. One of the defence counsel said he had no intention of saying whose blood it was, he didnt say it couldnt be ascertained who it belonged to.
tretorn wrote: » I dont know where those horrible boys got the idea from but we might as well say its Paddy Jacksons fault. People are actually posting that this incident is Jacksons fault. Unnamed men are walking free from courts everyday acquitted of rape and no one is dancing on their grave, Jackson and olding were named so they are to be the scapegoats for all sexual deviants. We have no evidence that it was but we have no evidence that he had anything but consensual sex with anyone either and that doesnt stop us wanting his head.
meeeeh wrote: » I get you and I have no problem with them working in some anonymous job but they are celebrities. We don't know them, except by their statements and actions. And they don't look good, they maybe didn't mean anything bad personally but we are not dealing with their intimate personality, we only have the image they project publicly. They became a symbol of something. Not letting them play might unfair to them but letting them play might be hurtful to a whole bigger group of people. It would also create impression that verbally abusing women is ok.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » It’s the 21st Century - surely we modern women are strong enough not be severely offended by men’s drunken antics and silly banter? Sure we engage in the exact same behaviors ourselves.
ArthurDayne wrote: » Ok well let's apply your argument to its logical conclusion. The only way to effectively enforce your view that celebrities be subject to a different law than everyone else when it comes to their private life is to actually have a law. Let's call this hypothetical law the Celebrity Act 2018. The Celebrity Act 2018 stipulates: "1. All people of public renown (with 'of renown' to be determined via the court's interpretation) shall be subject to the rule that all of their private statements must at all times be respectful, in line with public morality and inoffensive to the public or a section of the public. 2. Those who breach this Act at any stage of their life shall have committed an offence and shall be automatically deprived of their employment and their right to seek employment in that industry indefinitely" So there you go. Now you have your opinion cemented in law and all those in positions of 'celebrity' and public renown are now subject to a legal framework where they must conform to morality at all times. Yes it's scary 'Police State' dictatorship kind of stuff. But morality is saved, and celebrities shall never offend anyone again . . . and if they do they shall suffer the consequences. I appreciate the above example is somewhat ham-fisted (statutory drafting is not my forte) but would you like to see a law like that being implemented? If you would, then explain why. If not, then why would you not?
meeeeh wrote: » Nobody is calling for a law.
Faugheen wrote: » Did you read my post? I said I believe he was tricked In my opinion, he was duped into attending to cause a stir.
tretorn wrote: » Faugheen and a few more like him dont care whose blood it was. They are implying the woman was left a bloody mess after the threesome which means great force was used on her. They are raging the all the blood found doesnt belong to the woman who alleged rape but the fact that its there is enough to paint Jackson as somebody who regularly injures women in his house. I really, really hope Faugheen is never called for jury service involving any man accused of any crime whatsoever and particularly not the crime of rape. Faugheen not only would ignore factual evidence, he or she would make up evidence in order to justify themselves and everyone else on the jury to send an innocent person to jail. Faugheen is a very dangerous individual and its frightening that the PSNI and the PPS could bring such a ridiculous case, you would like to think the PPS would spot a case full of holes and thereby prevent the like of faugheen getting to pass judgment on anyone.There are none so blind as though who wont see.
Silentcorner wrote: » Indeed.... We saw this week details that the defence successfully argued should not be presented to the jury...there were literally dozens of other legal arguments that the defence made in an attempt to get the judge to direct the jury to acquit. See that is the job of the defence, normally one barrister and maybe one other solicitor/junior counsel....in this case there was a legal team of 12!!!!!! 12, including 4 barristers....who have argued every minute detail in this case in an attempt to collapse the trial...before the case made it to court it was the object of a number of different motions.... If you think this case should never have gone court you must believe that there was some other dark force behind it...requiring you to jump through yet another hoop in the desperate attempt to believe the lads were hard done by... But like you correctly said...there is none so blind as those who cannot see!
meeeeh wrote: » No but it should be up to employer weather they want to employ someone who harms their business. Nobody is calling for a law.
tretorn wrote: » The absolute neck of the Bank Of Ireland to lecture anyone about morals, their greed brought this country to its knees and not one of those overpaid **** saw the inside of a prison cell. Will I be arrested for calling someone a wanker, wanker is a derogatory term for a man who is otherwise known as a dick.
Yeah_Right wrote: » I think wanker is a highly offensive term and its degrading to men everywhere. I am offended on behalf of all men and I demand that you be fired from your job. Even if you apologise.
FrancieBrady wrote: » Love Board's ****!
FrancieBrady wrote: » Each barrister argued the case for the piece of evidence relating to their client. Like Faugheen, Grayson etc you are sensationalising what actually happened. '12 big bad barristers intimidating the lady judge'...that how it goes?
tretorn wrote: » Yes, I do think some power was behind the decision, the case was so full of holes it was like a sieve. It was very strnage for the PPS to come out afterwards with such a biased statement, they couldnt praise the woman enough for her bravery in coming forward but yet she was humiliated by the jurys decision, nothing to see here, let the men go. Its not normal for the PPS to make statements after cases or at least I dont think so anyway, its highly inappropriate, the PPS should have been apologising to Jackson and Olding for what they had been put through because this case was allowed to go to trial. What was so special about this case that the PPS came out and made a public statement about it.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » Faugheen wrote: » There was blood on his bed. Yes or No? The amount is immaterial, so shut up blathering on about a word when you know exactly what the point is. I think we will all have to accept there was some blood on the sheets - how much I don’t know. But that doesn’t make it rape.
Faugheen wrote: » There was blood on his bed. Yes or No? The amount is immaterial, so shut up blathering on about a word when you know exactly what the point is.
