Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I said it all along, the sponsors would go with the loudest noise.

Hard to silence the puritans.
At least their hypocrisy was exposed on here.

Hypocrisy exposed on here..

Francie this thread on boards is a nothing. Just a place for us to huff and puff and let off steam.

As useless as tits on a bull.

In years to come do you think history will record that the Boards.ie thread 'Belfast Rape Trial Discussion' was a key changing point in Irish society. Moral Hypocrisy was exposed and at the heart of it was the anonymous Francie Brady??!

Get real man this thread has absolutely no significance in the broader scheme on anything.

Would you fancy a spitroast with olding & Jackson Francie?

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Again, the same would happen in England or New Zealand and they're not Catholic countries.

For the last time The Roman Catholic Church had nothing to do with Protestant alumni of Methodist College Belfast doing what they did and said.

Childish trying to look for someone to blame when you don't get your way. Your in your 50s man.. Come on.

I am talking about the REACTION not the action.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I recognised a lot of the moral indignation about this. And it is exactly the same, 'get them out of sight' moral indignation that charactherised the last generation in this country.
Then we had the feminists, who had plenty to say about the male actions, the sport but sweet FA to say about how women behave.

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Hypocrisy exposed on here..

Francie this thread on boards is a nothing. Just a place for us to huff and puff and let off steam.

As useless as tits on a bull.

In years to come do you think history will record that the Boards.ie thread 'Belfast Rape Trial Discussion' was a key changing point in Irish society. Moral Hypocrisy was exposed and at the heart of it was the anonymous Francie Brady??!

Get real man this thread has absolutely no significance in the broader scheme on anything.

You think this will be 'a key changing point in Irish society'?

Bless your cotton socks. It has been swept under the carpet. It will be business as usual in a few weeks.

thebaz wrote: »

The banks helped rob the state of its sovereignity , causing horrific misery to many , now handing out moralistic lectures - PLEASE spare me - Olding and Jackson are finished wont play in or for Ireland again , I would have joined the witch-hunt if they were found guilty , rape is a horrific crime , but if they were truly innocent -

Spot on baz. Couldnt agree more. Having worked for this particular group of shysters and been a customer of the other, i find it just embarrassingly laughable that they would weigh in and be so pious on this issue. They really must think we are all dumb but then again we are borrowing credit from them again to buy overpriced houses

hatrickpatrick

The chilling effect of this is a little frightening. Nobody should feel that they have to self-censor in private correspondence among friends or family just in case that private correspondence is later published, and they face consequences because of what they said in what was intended to be a private conversation between specific individuals.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You think this will be 'a key changing point in Irish society'?

Bless your cotton socks. It has been swept under the carpet. It will be business as usual in a few weeks.

Francie you may read my post again you're very slow on the takeup :-D

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The chilling effect of this is a little frightening. Nobody should feel that they have to self-censor in private correspondence among friends or family just in case that private correspondence is later published, and they face consequences because of what they said in what was intended to be a private conversation between specific individuals.

There is people using the 'i believe her' tag merely because she suffered bruising. The girl was grossly humiliated by these 3 pups ill agree, but that does not prove rape. To further weigh the balance in the defendants favour, a key witness (a woman) entered the room and seemed to be of the impression that what was occurring was very much consensual. And her recollection of looking into one of the accused eyes pleading while she lid on her stomach also seems highly farcical.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I am talking about the REACTION not the action.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I recognised a lot of the moral indignation about this. And it is exactly the same, 'get them out of sight' moral indignation that charactherised the last generation in this country.
Then we had the feminists, who had plenty to say about the male actions, the sport but sweet FA to say about how women behave.

BALLSOLOGY. The reaction would be the same abroad. Are you familiar with how Christian countries like Samoa, Fiji, SA and New Zealand are?

About time you stopped belittling your own country. Go somewhere else to live and it's not all sunshine and roses either.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

There is people using the 'i believe her' tag merely because she suffered bruising. The girl was grossly humiliated by these 3 pups ill agree, but that does not prove rape. To further weigh the balance in the defendants favour, a key witness (a woman) entered the room and seemed to be of the impression that what was occurring was very much consensual. And her recollection of looking into one of the accused eyes pleading while she lid on her stomach also seems highly farcical.

This isn't even the point though, some people are calling for them to be fired specifically because of the language they used by text message - text messages which were intended entirely for an extremely small, private audience among close friends.

The idea that one's behaviour in such private communications should be legal for an employer to consider in terms of dismissal is appalling.

NAGDEFI wrote: »

BALLSOLOGY. The reaction would be the same abroad. Are you familiar with how Christian countries like Samoa, Fiji, SA and New Zealand are?

That may be. I am talking about Ireland.

About time you stopped belittling your own country. Go somewhere else to live and it's not all sunshine and roses either.a key changing point in Irish society.

How apt, considering that's what the IRFU have said to innocent men for fear of losing money or annoying the already annoyed.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That may be. I am talking about Ireland.

How apt, considering that's what the IRFU have said to innocent men for fear of losing money or annoying the already annoyed.

You were talking about Ireland's repressed sexuality, due to the RC, being responsible for the reaction to the Belfast case. I pointed out reaction would be similar in other Christian (non Catholic countries).

You're making no sense tonight and would argue black is white.

Do you mind me asking why you've invested so much time on this topic? You're the one constant poster every hour. If it's something personal no prob. But you are taking it all way too seriously and fixated on your stance and it being 100% correct.

Strazdas

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The chilling effect of this is a little frightening. Nobody should feel that they have to self-censor in private correspondence among friends or family just in case that private correspondence is later published, and they face consequences because of what they said in what was intended to be a private conversation between specific individuals.

What you are completely ignoring here is that their own actions that evening played a big part in those conversations becoming public. They found themselves the subject of a police investigation and were not entirely blameless for the fact that they were being investigated by police.

You're making it sound like a bunch of rugby players had a saucy WhatsApp conversation, that there was no actual incident involving the complainant and that the men are being pilloried purely for the content of texts they sent each other.

NAGDEFI wrote: »

You were talking about Ireland's repressed sexuality, due to the RC, being responsible for the reaction to the Belfast case. I pointed out reaction would be similar in other Christian (non Catholic countries).

You're making no sense tonight and would argue black is white.

Do you mind me asking why you've invested so much time on this topic? You're the one constant poster every hour. If it's something personal no prob. But you are taking it all way too seriously and fixated on your stance and it being 100% correct.

I don't really care about what would happen in other countries. I am analysing what happened in this one, when massed crowds turned out on the streets trying to undermine the decision of a jury and where that reaction came from.
This thread is a microcosm of that, in that several posters have spent their time sensationalising the facts and undermining the verdict while protesting that they accept it.

Strazdas wrote: »

What you are completely ignoring here is that their own actions that evening played a big part in those conversations becoming public. They found themselves the subject of a police investigation and were not entirely blameless for the fact that they were being investigated by police.

You're making it sound like a bunch of rugby players had a saucy WhatsApp conversation, that there was no actual incident involving the complainant and that the men are being pilloried purely for the content of texts they sent each other.

Nobody condones what happened that night. They contest that the punishment is disproportionately severe and just salves higher moral ground arrogance.

AllForIt

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The chilling effect of this is a little frightening. Nobody should feel that they have to self-censor in private correspondence among friends or family just in case that private correspondence is later published, and they face consequences because of what they said in what was intended to be a private conversation between specific individuals.

Absolutely. It is this part of the case which is of most interest to me and yet that aspect of the case has gone completely under the radar. I haven't heard it discussed once and it just blows my mind the general public don't seem to think it of any concern at all and the media didn't pick up on it either.

How did the guards get access to their messages especially the whatsapp ones? Why were the comments admissible as evidence when they didn't in any way prove that they raped her just like the video that was not included as evidence. All they proved is that they were into 'spit roasting'. They must hugely regret giving the guards access to their phones with passwords as they had no obligation to do so but they did willingly because they had noting to hide (in respect of a crime) and look at where it got them for being cooperative.

hatrickpatrick

Strazdas wrote: »

What you are completely ignoring here is that their own actions that evening played a big part in those conversations becoming public. They found themselves the subject of a police investigation and were not entirely blameless for the fact that they were being investigated by police.

You're making it sound like a bunch of rugby players had a saucy WhatsApp conversation, that there was no actual incident involving the complainant and that the men are being pilloried purely for the content of texts they sent each other.

They were found innocent of the crime which the aforementioned police investigation was investigating. There is nothing wrong with consensual sexual activity. Ergo, the entire premise on which the messages became public is wrong - yet another reason the details of a trial should be considered classified information to everyone except for those directly involved in the case.

Your remarks would of course be entirely valid if the verdict in this case had been a guilty verdict. But it was not.

RabbleRouser2k

Apparently the 'small group' that were at Ulster were supporting Jackson and Olding-the 250 or so were protesting their potential return.

But Jackson and Olding are outta here, dems da breaks.

Well, let's be honest here-this was going to be the only outcome. There were no 'winners' with this trial.
When you could see all the divided opinions, here on boards, on tv, on twitter, on facebook, within every media you could imagine, that pretty much sealed their fate.
We all would have to be in complete agreement in order for them to return-and that was not going to happen.

The Whatsapp messages, the 'who's blood is it' that did not belong to any of the parties, and did not get an explanation-the multilple questions and ugly elements of the trial. And many other aspects, it left too much stuff inconclusive.

almostover

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Payout. They are still negotiating it apparently.
BOI feels morally superior again...phew!

Kind of ironic that a financial institution who conned many families out of their money in the tracker mortgage scandal takes the high moral ground in this case. Disappointing that money is taking precedence over a chance at redemption for PJ and SO. In some ways this decision is damning of our modern consumer driven society. Money talks and that's all that matters....

RabbleRouser2k

almostover wrote: »

Kind of ironic that a financial institution who conned many families out of their money in the tracker mortgage scandal takes the high moral ground in this case. Disappointing that money is taking precedence over a chance at redemption for PJ and SO. In some ways this decision is damning of our modern consumer driven society. Money talks and that's all that matters....

Pretty much-hell, I even remember when 3 were doing the adverts where they super imposed Martin O'Neill's head onto your average punter in the pub-they never used Roy's head, probably because of the Saipan incident.
If a sponsor says 'we don't feel these guys represent us' then they're outta there.
Ditto if they were women.

Sport sucks in that regard-just ask Tiger Woods-the amount of endorsements he lost-had hundred of millions wiped away in an instant.

almostover

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Pretty much-hell, I even remember when 3 were doing the adverts where they super imposed Martin O'Neill's head onto your average punter in the pub-they never used Roy's head, probably because of the Saipan incident.
If a sponsor says 'we don't feel these guys represent us' then they're outta there.
Ditto if they were women.

Sport sucks in that regard-just ask Tiger Woods-the amount of endorsements he lost-had hundred of millions wiped away in an instant.

It's a pity there wasn't as much of a protest movement when banks such as BOI 'raped' Irish citizens in the various mortgage scandals as there was for the ibelieveher movement. It will be interesting to see if a protest movement continues for victims of rape. Or will the noise die down now that the mob has gotten their pound of flesh.

tritium

Silentcorner wrote: »

You're forgetting - the following bodies were all acting in cahoots.

The Irish media (for completely unbalanced media exposure)
The PSNI (for bothering to investigating the complaint)
The CPS (for believing it had a better than a reasonable chance of securing a conviction)
The Femanzis
Social Media
Liberals/Conservatives
Sexually repressed Catholics
Other unknown dark forces

Don’t forget the courts who finally wanted to see what happened if a rape case got to the end because it’s so rare

You still haven’t explained where you came up with that lie

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The chilling effect of this is a little frightening. Nobody should feel that they have to self-censor in private correspondence among friends or family just in case that private correspondence is later published, and they face consequences because of what they said in what was intended to be a private conversation between specific individuals.

On the plus side, this may very well put manners on any other professional or high profile sports star who just might think twice about how they treat those women who they think idolise them.

These lads behaved like absolute scumbags, and when you work in a high profile public well paid job, there are consequences for that kind of behaviour.

tritium wrote: »

Don’t forget the courts who finally wanted to see what happened if a rape case got to the end because it’s so rare

You still haven’t explained where you came up with that lie

What the f##k are you on about what lie?

almostover wrote: »

Kind of ironic that a financial institution who conned many families out of their money in the tracker mortgage scandal takes the high moral ground in this case. Disappointing that money is taking precedence over a chance at redemption for PJ and SO. In some ways this decision is damning of our modern consumer driven society. Money talks and that's all that matters....

Make no mistake, BOI didn't rear up in media until this week, nor did any of the other sponsors....I'll bet the decision was made before they went public.

Deleted User wrote: »

There is people using the 'i believe her' tag merely because she suffered bruising. The girl was grossly humiliated by these 3 pups ill agree, but that does not prove rape. To further weigh the balance in the defendants favour, a key witness (a woman) entered the room and seemed to be of the impression that what was occurring was very much consensual. And her recollection of looking into one of the accused eyes pleading while she lid on her stomach also seems highly farcical.

The key witness claims it was definitely a spitroast with Jackson penetrating with his penis.... but Jackson denies that....no sex no rape ....handy

Olding claimed he couldn't see if Jackson was fnvking her or fingering her.....

That's farcical IMO

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nobody condones what happened that night. They contest that the punishment is disproportionately severe and just salves higher moral ground arrogance.

You can condone or contest whatever you like

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Pretty much-hell, I even remember when 3 were doing the adverts where they super imposed Martin O'Neill's head onto your average punter in the pub-they never used Roy's head, probably because of the Saipan incident.
If a sponsor says 'we don't feel these guys represent us' then they're outta there.
Ditto if they were women.

Sport sucks in that regard-just ask Tiger Woods-the amount of endorsements he lost-had hundred of millions wiped away in an instant.

Martin is the manager....the assistant manager is pretty much a nobody to be fair. Just because it's Roy Keane doing the role it's still a nobody role.