Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Mrsmum wrote: »

I doubt anyone mind them being paid off.

Of course they don't. Optics, sweep it all under the carpet.

Roger Hassenforder

meeeeh wrote: »

And some men should have responsibility and keep their dick in their pants or they might lose their job.

Fair enough if they raped the conplainant.
The didnt.
Indeed according to one testimony, their dick was removed from their pants.

givyjoe

Mrsmum wrote: »

With regard to my knowledge of teenagers and my family You are just wrong but like in a lot of things you think you're right. I am well able for the cut and trust of modern life and teenagers but I also know when it steps over the line and I'm not alone in knowing that. Some day you might grow up and know too.

Mrsmum, yesterday you clearly demonstrated your complete naivety with 'the scene' as you called it, i.e. teenagers and their sexual activity. You stated it was all 'petty' stuff, suggesting innocence. The fact that you actually think you know what even your own son, never mind his friends and their peers are up to, clearly demonstrates your ignorance on the matter.

Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting they're up to anything nefarious, just what the average teenager gets up to, and it isnt 'petty' stuff.

meeeeh wrote: »

And some men should have responsibility and keep their dick in their pants or they might lose their job.

I thought it was their Whatsapp messages that lost them their jobs.

And I agree, EVERYONE needs to review their personal responsibilities. But of course that is not the message the mob ever sent on this one, is it.

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, but the IRFU are clearly trying to give the impression that they sacked them. ('Revoked their contracts')
Seems they didn't, they negotiated an early end to their contracts. Entirely different thing.

I doubt anyone mind them being paid off.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Really grasping at straws now - quite sad to witness.

I think it is those welcoming the 'great news' that they were 'sacked' are the ones grasping at straws.

Roger Hassenforder

ProfessorPlum wrote: »

You need Joe to mansplain it for you? :rolleyes::D

Jesus Christ, dont mention "mansplaining", facehugger is liable to explode in a burst of bitter juice and pith.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Some women need to have personal responsibility and not end up drunk and alone in strangers bedrooms.

And some men should have responsibility and keep their dick in their pants or they might lose their job.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The joke is that you are delighted they were sacked.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106723513&postcount=820
The fact is they weren't. They negotiated a financial reward to end their contracts early.

Really grasping at straws now - quite sad to witness.

meeeeh wrote: »

I still don't get you, women should not go into VIP areas or should not drink because they would potentially get raped?

Some women need to have personal responsibility and not end up drunk and alone in strangers bedrooms.

ProfessorPlum

Mrsmum wrote: »

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

You need Joe to mansplain it for you? :rolleyes::D

facehugger99 wrote: »

What joke is that Francie lad?

The joke is that you are delighted they were sacked.

wexie wrote:

Oh look at that....they've been sacked

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43766959

facehugger wrote:

Hardly surprising.

Great news all the same.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106723513&postcount=820
The fact is they weren't. They negotiated a financial reward to end their contracts early.

Mrsmum

ArthurDayne wrote: »

MrsMum, seeing as Facehugger doesn't appear too willing to explore the theme further -- perhaps I might ask if you would be willing to answer on the below hypothesis. Would you be supportive of the following National Programme being implemented?

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.

4. 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 b.ction in private conversations will have been won.

Would you support this program?

I have no interest whatsoever in delving into what anyone does in their private life but when it becomes known to me then I will have an opinion just as everyone else will. Their behaviour invaded my home for weeks on end. I didn't go looking for it in this case and I won't ever go looking for it. So bad was it that reporters warned us that we should protect little ears from hearing.There was literally no getting away from it and you would want to be braindead not to have a viewpoint. My viewpoint wasn't favourable to them. Their employers and sponsors also thought they lacked respect and integrity. It's over now. Next case stands on it's own merits.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, but the IRFU are clearly trying to give the impression that they sacked them. ('Revoked their contracts')
Seems they didn't, they negotiated an early end to their contracts. Entirely different thing.

It's called paying off someone because you would rather pay for them not to play for you than have them in your team.

givyjoe

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.

Whereas are your 'insightful', biased and bitter contributions are lighting it up.

Roger Hassenforder

Mrsmum wrote: »

Love the way you put the top age AT 24 there just to cover the stupid behaviour of PJ.

Actually i used it as a nice 10yr span to cover the years where young adults are most susceptible to gob****ery and behaviour, their later years would acknowlege included some moments which were possibly not their finest hours.

As the teens/complainant would say
"Lolz"
Did you just think of that riposte too late after premature posting precluded its insertion ?

At least we can agree it was stupid though.
Not criminal, not deserving of having his life ruined.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah the indignant feminist rant. Never imply that your own personal responsibility is part of the reason you may end up in potentially dangerous situations because that is anti women something something. :rolleyes:.

I still don't get you, women should not go into VIP areas or should not drink because they would potentially get raped?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, but the IRFU are clearly trying to give the impression that they sacked them. ('Revoked their contracts')
Seems they didn't, they negotiated an early end to their contracts. Entirely different thing.

Sure Francie - you 'won'.

*Slow hand clap

sugarman wrote: »

Isn't that pretty much the case in all professional sporting contracts? They'd legally be entitled to see out their contracts or come to a settlement . They can only ever terminate a players contract if it's in breach of club rules.

Yes, but the IRFU are clearly trying to give the impression that they sacked them. ('Revoked their contracts')
Seems they didn't, they negotiated an early end to their contracts. Entirely different thing.

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Would you support this program?

Stop with false equations. You are not getting a response because your manifesto is so wide of the mark it's not worth responding.

joe40

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Mrsmum wrote: »

With regard to my knowledge of teenagers and my family You are just wrong but like in a lot of things you think you're right. I am well able for the cut and trust of modern life and teenagers but I also know when it steps over the line and I'm not alone in knowing that. Some day you might grow up and know too.

MrsMum, seeing as Facehugger doesn't appear too willing to explore the theme further -- perhaps I might ask if you would be willing to answer on the below hypothesis. Would you be supportive of the following National Programme being implemented?

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.

4. 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?

This is really not complicated. Your privacy is important and should be protected as indeed it is.
If your private conversations become public, for whatever reason, you have to own those comments. They are a reflection on you.
If they are offensive, damaging, illegal you have to own the consequences.
The fact they started out as private is no defence.
Just to be clear i'm talking about this in general, not this case specifically.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nothing bitter about it. I'm delighted they got paid to leave and let the sponsors/IRFU engage in the con that they sacked them.

Joke is on you and yours facehugger.

What joke is that Francie lad?

I'd be surprised if their contracts hadn't been paid up - would be quite normal under the circumstances.

The main thing as far as I'm concerned is that they never represent Ireland again. Good luck to them in France or wherever they wash up - none of my business, as long as they never wear the green again I'm quite happy.

meeeeh wrote: »

And what is wrong with that. Are you saying they are asking for it. And btw what is your obsession with VIP areas, should only men be allowed into them?

Ah the indignant feminist rant. Never imply that your own personal responsibility is part of the reason you may end up in potentially dangerous situations because that is anti women something something. :rolleyes:

I referred to VIP areas with men in them because this is where the night in question began. Calm down on that one.

DavidLyons_

facehugger99 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

BBC reporter saying there that this is not really a sacking, it is a mutual agreement involving a financial settlement.

A fudge to quieten the mob. And they seem to have bought it.

The bitter is strong in this one.:D

Oh the fcuking irony.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You don't think there will be drunk young girls clambering to get into nightclub VIP areas tonight?

So deluded. :rolleyes:

And what is wrong with that. Are you saying they are asking for it. And btw what is your obsession with VIP areas, should only men be allowed into them?

pjohnson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nothing bitter about it. I'm delighted they got paid to leave and let the sponsors/IRFU engage in the con that they sacked them.

Joke is on you and yours facehugger.

I wonder will facehugger and co. go back to wanting Rory Best removed from Ireland duty.

facehugger99 wrote: »

The bitter is strong in this one.:D

Nothing bitter about it. I'm delighted they got paid to leave and let the sponsors/IRFU engage in the con that they sacked them.

Joke is on you and yours facehugger.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

BBC reporter saying there that this is not really a sacking, it is a mutual agreement involving a financial settlement.

A fudge to quieten the mob. And they seem to have bought it.

The bitter is strong in this one.:D

ArthurDayne

Mrsmum wrote: »

With regard to my knowledge of teenagers and my family You are just wrong but like in a lot of things you think you're right. I am well able for the cut and trust of modern life and teenagers but I also know when it steps over the line and I'm not alone in knowing that. Some day you might grow up and know too.

MrsMum, seeing as Facehugger doesn't appear too willing to explore the theme further -- perhaps I might ask if you would be willing to answer on the below hypothesis. Would you be supportive of the following National Programme being implemented?

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.

4. 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?