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

[Deleted User]

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

a vociferous minority I feel, triggered enough to literally 'mobile'ize themselves to put thumb to screen, via twitter etc, so lets not use opinion polls to establish the mood of the "people in a statistically unreliable poll or two.
most people i know think its outrageous, both their identification in the media, and subsequent treatment after being found innocent.

lets remind ourselves of the conversation that has led to an outraged mob demanding they never play for their country again. Something they have worked towards all their life. Its not more than a hobby, Irish rugby was their life.

on being asked "how was she?" by a friend. Olding replied
"she was very very loose.”
Friend: “Any tips or stories Simon?”
Olding:“Went to Cutters, Ollies, then after-party”
Friend: “Any sluts get f**ked?”
Olding: “Precious secrets.”
11:16am JACOME WhatsApp member: “I said tonight is your lucky night.”
11:17am Olding :“we’re all top sh***ers”
11.17am Olding: “there was a bit of spit roasting going on last night fellas
11.17am Jackson: “There was a lot of spit roast last night.” (thats his contribution in full!)
11.18am Olding “It was like a merry go round at the carnival

two young men after what they thought was a consensual threesome (known as a spitroast" with a willing participant, indulge in some braggadocio. among their friends.
If you honestly think any young male in your life wouldnt say worse in the privacy of their friends, you are seriously deluded.
George Hook was hounded for a public clumsy utterance that a mob found unpalatable. These lads have been hounded for a private utterance.
Its fcuking outrageous.

But Jackson claims the spitroast in question involved no actual sex....bullsh1t Imo....but no sex no rape.

Also he had no further contribution as it all went to the cafe after kingspan tipped him off.

FrancieBrady

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Bank of Ireland have neck talking morals after the destruction they caused to hundreds of thousands of lives in this country

I think the people who have really let the mask slip are those women at the forefront of Rape Crisis Centres north and south.

Their remit is to prevent rape and to educate on the issues surrounding it.

Rather than make this a conversation about personal responsibility for all young people socialising, they have climbed on to a feminist bandwagon and made it about men and male sporting organisations.

A complete dereliction of their responsibilities imo.

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

Talk about missing the point, Jackson is celebrity that Watford guy is probably on average industrial wage if he's lucky and anonymous. Nobody wants to be him and nobody cares about him. You can bet he won't be playing for Irish national team or any high profile team where he would actually make a bit of career.

So it is all about optics, nothing to do with human beings at all.
Thanks for being honest.

facehugger99

Power to the People!

People actually united in horror and revulsion at the callus way 2 privileged young men treated a dunk teenager.

Sure, the twitter mob and man-haters will be blamed by the usual bitter suspects, but Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding were the architects of their own downfall. The other 2 arseholes don't come out of this smelling of roses either, but as profession sportspeople, PJ and SO had the most to lose and behaved the most despicably.

The decision today was inevitable, I knew they were finished with Ireland but once I head on the grapevine that key sponsors were going to pull out if the correct decision wasn't made by Ulster, they were dead men walking. I pointed this out a number of days ago in the previous thread and was proved spot on.

It's a great day that actually gives me hope for the future for a change.

meeeeh

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

A girl left my house one night in tears after we broke up. She cheated, i dumped.
Should i lose my job?

Yes that's it. The same if she was crying because she fell.

[Deleted User]

meeeeh wrote: »

Talk about missing the point, Jackson is celebrity that Watford guy is probably on average industrial wage if he's lucky and anonymous. Nobody wants to be him and nobody cares about him. You can bet he won't be playing for Irish national team or any high profile team where he would actually make a bit of career.

He’s Nigerian so probably not.

[Deleted User]

ulster rugby had better have been very consistent in evoking the disrepute clause up to now because otherwise they will be taken to the cleaners

i dunno whether i hope that happens or not.

over the text messages, theres simply no case to be made that isnt social media led witch-hunt frenzy and thats a terrible thing to bow to.

over the sneaky feeling that they got away with behaviour that might or might not have been rape, i can see that. but hard to act on after a not-guilty verdict.

possibly a case of using one excuse to cover the other, which is dodgy.

meeeeh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So it is all about optics, nothing to do with human beings at all.
Thanks for being honest.

Of course it is about optics. It was never about anything else but optics. If he was a call centre worker he'd be back next Monday, if he was a manager of that company he would be probably told to resign by the share holders. Demands of prominent job are different.

holyhead

I think the text messages allied to the allegation of rape did for them. A nice sincere respectful person could be accused of rape but is unlikely to send/share text messages of that ilk to their friends.

waffleman

neonsofa wrote: »

I always thought that "mansplaining" was when the woman actually doesn't need it explained but the man patronises the woman and over simplifies things to her regardless. For example a new guy in work was sitting with me and a group of lads at the canteen, couple of the lads started discussing football and new guy starts basically "translating" the conversation for me. Probably a bad example but that's what I thought people referred to as mansplaining more so than just a man explaining something to a woman that she doesn't understand.

Explaining somethin to a person that he/she already understands is not gender specific. Why not just say you are already aware of that - no need to explain.

Anyone who accuses someone of being sexist by using a sexist term themselves is a dunce to begin with.

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

Of course it is about optics. It was never about anything else but optics. If he was a call centre worker he'd be back next Monday, if he was a manager of that company he would be probably told to resign by the share holders.

Great, I'm chuffed you can carry on pretending.

[Deleted User]

facehugger99 wrote: »

Power to the People!

People actually united in horror and revulsion at the callus way 2 privileged young men treated a dunk teenager.

Sure, the twitter mob and man-haters will be blamed by the usual bitter suspects, but Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding were the architects of their own downfall. The other 2 arseholes don't come out of this smelling of roses either, but as profession sportspeople, PJ and SO had the most to lose and behaved the most despicably.

The decision today was inevitable, I knew they were finished with Ireland but once I head on the grapevine that key sponsors were going to pull out if the correct decision wasn't made by Ulster, they were dead men walking. I pointed this out a number of days ago in the previous thread and was proved spot on.

It's a great day that actually gives me hope for the future for a change.

I think your dead right, it as all of their own doing.

High profile professional sports people are in a goldfish bowl, whether that is right or wrong is beside the point, it's the reality of 2018.

They obviously don't have the level of maturity required to understand that anything they say or do could be very quickly put under the microscope.

They will find work elsewhere, they will continue to be professional sportsmen, they might even earn a lot more money than they could have do in Ireland.

Sponsors hold a lot of sway in modern day professional sports, that's what helps teams be successful, again whether people agree with that or not is besdide the point, it's the reality of 2018.

Cushie Butterfield

Fann Linn wrote: »

And the moral of this story is 'stay off watzap!'

Not necessarily, just run any messages by BOI or another major sponsor before sending. Extremely time consuming but there you have it.

On a side note, it’s a sorry day indeed when society (female & male) have to rely on a bank to set the moral barometer.

Squeaky clean banks who brought the country to its knees are now moral dictators.

Sad, terrifying & hilarious imo.

meeeeh

Omackeral wrote: »

He’s Nigerian so probably not.

Well that tells you how well known he is.

Roger Hassenforder

washman3 wrote: »

I don't think anyone really gives a s###e to be honest.

Exactly, and well played, with that eloquent contribution, notwithstanding i suspect the point being wholly and utterly lost on you.
Carry on though, i dont want to have to mansplain something.

joe40

I don't particularly like the term "mansplaining" because it can be used in a lazy way to detract from someone rather than their argument. A bit like calling someone a feminazi.
In this case someone was explaining to a woman why she should not find the word "slut" offensive. That is simply ridiculous and mrsmum was absolutely correct to respond the way she did. If I call a woman a bitch, a witch, a nasty f**cker or any other term it is not a offensive term for others. A slut is. For people who don't understand that, just ask the women in your life what they think.

facehugger99

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

On a side note, it’s a sorry day indeed when society (female & male) have to rely on a bank to set the moral barometer.

Squeaky clean banks who brought the country to its knees are now moral dictators.

You got it backwards.

Ordinary people and customers of the sponsors set the moral barometer - the sponsors simply jumped in behind the prevailing opinion.

Roger Hassenforder

Mrsmum wrote: »

I know you guys have to latch on to something today seeing as your other cause is lost. Might as well be mansplaining. Btw when you teach your class as I teach my class, that would be called teaching. Surprised you don't know that.

Woosh.
So tell me again what mansplaining is...

I suspect one of us is actually teaching young adults going by your contributions to date, where it seems youve been heretofore unexposed to such language.

Mrsmum

joe40 wrote: »

I don't particularly like the term "mansplaining" because it can be used in a lazy way to detract from someone rather than their argument. A bit like calling someone a feminazi.
In this case someone was explaining to a woman why she should not find the word "slut" offensive. That is simply ridiculous and mrsmum was absolutely correct to respond the way she did. If I call a woman a bitch, a witch, a nasty f**cker or any other term it is not a offensive term for others. A slut is. For people who don't understand that, just ask the women in your life what they think.

Thank you joe40. That is exactly correct.

neonsofa

waffleman wrote: »

Explaining somethin to a person that he/she already understands is not gender specific. Why not just say you are already aware of that - no need to explain.

.

As I said myself in the second part of the post you quoted.

facehugger99

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Woosh.
So tell me again what mansplaining is...

Jesus man - why don't you knock the mansplaining ****e off? - it's boring to to keep spamming the thread with your repetitious waffle.

ArthurDayne

facehugger99 wrote: »

Power to the People!

People actually united in horror and revulsion at the callus way 2 privileged young men treated a dunk teenager.

Sure, the twitter mob and man-haters will be blamed by the usual bitter suspects, but Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding were the architects of their own downfall. The other 2 arseholes don't come out of this smelling of roses either, but as profession sportspeople, PJ and SO had the most to lose and behaved the most despicably.

The decision today was inevitable, I knew they were finished with Ireland but once I head on the grapevine that key sponsors were going to pull out if the correct decision wasn't made by Ulster, they were dead men walking. I pointed this out a number of days ago in the previous thread and was proved spot on.

It's a great day that actually gives me hope for the future for a change.

Facehugger, your glee at this outcome is an emotion you are perfectly entitled to feel -- hell, despite everything I have said here I can still see some understandable rationale for the outcome, even if I don't agree with it. If you think however that justice has been done here and there is 'hope for change', then in the interests of equality and consistency why don't we just do something like this:

1. All citizens of the State shall submit their phones and other electronic devices to the nearest Garda station;

2. All devices will be screened along a rubric created by a panel of experts on public morality and decency. All social media companies will be legally ordered to store messages which are deleted so that they can be retrieved.;

3. Screening will include ALL private correspondence, including with family, spouses and friends.

3. All those who are found to have used terms or language in private conversation that can be deemed offensive to the public or a section of the public shall be automatically liable for expulsion from their jobs.

In one fell swoop -- all those who have used degrading and offensive language will be cast out of their jobs. Only the morally righteous shall remain and the workplaces of Ireland shall be purified. The battle to embed political correctness and moral perfection in private conversations will have been won.

Would you support this program?

Jayesdiem

Mrsmum wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

I don't particularly like the term "mansplaining" because it can be used in a lazy way to detract from someone rather than their argument. A bit like calling someone a feminazi.
In this case someone was explaining to a woman why she should not find the word "slut" offensive. That is simply ridiculous and mrsmum was absolutely correct to respond the way she did. If I call a woman a bitch, a witch, a nasty f**cker or any other term it is not a offensive term for others. A slut is. For people who don't understand that, just ask the women in your life what they think.

Thank you joe40. That is exactly correct.

Factually correct or in your opinion correct?

Mrsmum

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Woosh.
So tell me again what mansplaining is...

I suspect one of us is actually teaching young adults going by your contributions to date, where it seems youve been heretofore unexposed to such language.

You suspect incorrectly. And I also have four teenagers.
See joe40's post to explain what actually happened.

Strazdas

holyhead wrote: »

I think the text messages allied to the allegation of rape did for them. A nice sincere respectful person could be accused of rape but is unlikely to send/share text messages of that ilk to their friends.

It was a bit of everything really. The unsavoury incident and a woman leaving their house distressed and in tears, coupled with the texts the following day bragging about the unsavoury incident and speaking in extremely unflattering terms about the woman and women in general.

They could possibly have stayed with Ulster Rugby with just one of these elements being the case and not the other, but the whole lot combined was enough to push them out the door.

Mrsmum

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Factually correct or in your opinion correct?

Both as regards someone telling me at great lengths why I, a woman should not feel offended by a degrading term used about women. No one but me gets to decide that for me.

facehugger99

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Facehugger, your glee at this outcome is an emotion you are perfectly entitled to feel -- hell, despite everything I have said here I can still see some understandable rationale for the outcome, even if I don't agree with it. If you think however that justice has been done here and there is 'hope for change', then in the interests of equality and consistency why don't we just do something like this:

1. All citizens of the State shall submit their phones and other electronic devices to the nearest Garda station;

2. All devices will be screened along a rubric created by a panel of experts on public morality and decency. All social media companies will be legally ordered to store messages which are deleted so that they can be retrieved.;

3. Screening will include ALL private correspondence, including with family, spouses and friends.

3. All those who are found to have used terms or language in private conversation that can be deemed offensive to the public or a section of the public shall be automatically liable for expulsion from their jobs.

In one fell swoop -- all those who have used degrading and offensive language will be cast out of their jobs. Only the morally righteous shall remain and the workplaces of Ireland shall be purified. The battle to embed political correctness and moral perfection in private conversations will have been won.

Would you support this program?

I've a better idea that will be simpler.

1. Don't act like an arsehole.

pjohnson

Disgracful they have been hounded out after been found not guilty.

ArthurDayne

Mrsmum wrote: »

Thank you joe40. That is exactly correct.

Going to have to ask you both to fish out where I told Mrsmum, or anyone else for that matter, how they should personally feel about being called a slut.

I never said anything of the sort. Pull out to me the sentence where you think that I was maybe even suggesting thatand we can discuss.

Otherwise, you're just putting words in my mouth -- which is unfair and a cowardly way of sidestepping the points I am trying to make.

Roger Hassenforder

facehugger99 wrote: »

Jesus man - why don't you knock the mansplaining ****e off? - it's boring to to keep spamming the thread with your repetitious waffle.

I didnt introduce, cop yourself on now, the grown ups are discussing a serious and topical issue.

Spoon