Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

at least we know their contracts weren’t terminated because if whatsapp messages. If that were true, Gilroy would also be gone. PJs contribution to the messages didn’t even warrant a slap on the wrist. So for those who are saying it’s got nothing to do with the feminazis looking for their pound of man meat, I call BS.

givyjoe

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I'd also really like to affirm: a girl going into a bedroom -does not mean she wants to have sex.

In fact, I think we are all familiar with this scenario: the man may say some excuse to get the woman to see the bedroom. I.e "I want to show you the fish/book I have/music I have."

A woman walking into a man's bedroom does not mean she wants to have sex, and again you are arrogant to assume so.

Lets hope this case knocked home the seriousness of: Ask someone do they want to have sex before you proceed, or you could ruin your life/career.

It's still he said she said after.

FrancieBrady

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Why would a consensual threesome get anyone sacked. What you do consensually is your own business.

It was the lads overall behaviour, leaving the girl crying and bleeding and the messages. Of course they look bad.

CG only sent a message which is why he was suspended.

It was decided by the court it wasn't rape, so that means it was consensual as the only sober witness claimed.

Are you saying the IRFU set themselves up to be higher than the court and tried this case themselves?
That's one big claim.

[Deleted User]

facehugger99 wrote: »

Would it be within the remit of World Rugby Governing Body to step in and prevent other clubs offering them contracts, does anyone know?

They have brought the game in general into disrepute.

Would send a very strong message.

That's exterem, way OTT.

The reason these guys are gone from Ireland and Ulster is optics, the type of conversations they had about women do not sit well with the organisations and more importantly with the sponsors of those organisations.

Just like Tiger banging Perkins waitresses in the parking lot was poor optics for his sponsors.

Jackson and Olding have not done anything illegal, I'm sure there are many out there is professional rugby that have done worse than send messages that we're in very poor taste.

They can't be denied a livelehood in places where the optics are less important just because of that.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I'd also really like to affirm: a girl going into a bedroom -does not mean she wants to have sex.

In fact, I think we are all familiar with this scenario: the man may say some excuse to get the woman to see the bedroom. I.e "I want to show you the fish/book I have/music I have."

A woman walking into a man's bedroom does not mean she wants to have sex, and again you are arrogant to assume so.

Lets hope this case knocked home the seriousness of: Ask someone do they want to have sex before you proceed, or you could ruin your life/career.

It doesnt matter if the woman said yes, yes and yes, I want you to fcuk me every 10 seconds. It doesn't even matter if there was no sex at all. What matters is what she says the next day. Guilty or not...the mans life is ruined while the woman enjoys anonymity.

[Deleted User]

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was decided by the court it wasn't rape, so that means it was consensual as the only sober witness claimed.

Are you saying the IRFU set themselves up to be higher than the court and tried this case themselves?
That's one big claim.

Of course they do.

An awful lot of organisations do.

The bar for a sacking is far lower than that for a criminal conviction.

It would be a crazy world otherwise.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Why would a consensual threesome get anyone sacked. What you do consensually is your own business.

It was the lads overall behaviour, leaving the girl crying and bleeding and the messages. Of course they look bad.

CG only sent a message which is why he was suspended.

Yes, what people do consensually is their own business. If it was the messages that got them sacked, then why not Gilroy?

Tbf, you have a personal bias and agenda which you mentioned earlier in the thread, so it’s not surprising you wrongly think PJ and SO are guilty of rape.

Nermal

pjohnson wrote: »

Sure Jamie is currently not employed but that was a month or so ago. What about Andy Gray and Richard Keys had no problems getting their careers back on track after comments they had made did they? Gray even worked in England a few years later again. If its actual crimes then an actual convicted rapist still plays for Waterford. Jermaine Pennant played for Birmingham wearking an Anklet. How many athletes across various fields have been convicted of drink driving?

So explain your hysteria again?

If it was a matter of money, neither player would have been at Ulster in the first place, they'd already be in England or France.

It's a desire to represent one's country, a right to privacy, and a matter of respecting the court's verdict. All of them thwarted by a blue-haired twitter mob and a spineless IRFU.

tritium

Silentcorner wrote: »

My hysteria????

Look back on all those guys you listed, then come back to me with a link where they were paid the same or more than what they were on before they fooked up!

And good luck to them. It’s hardly their concern now that that the IRFU took the only incentive not to move to better paying countries off the table

facehugger99

goz83 wrote: »

It doesnt matter if the woman said yes, yes and yes, I want you to fcuk me every 10 seconds.

Have you ever had sex?

facehugger99 wrote: »

Have you ever had sex?

Why do u ask

Nermal wrote: »

If it was a matter of money, neither player would have been at Ulster in the first place, they'd already be in England or France.

It's a desire to represent one's country, a right to privacy, and a matter of respecting the court's verdict. All of them thwarted by a blue-haired twitter mob and a spineless IRFU.

I know. Hell they will probably earn more now they are free from IRFU.

tritium

Royal Legend wrote: »

Not Irish Players though, if its the Whatsapp, then why wasn't Gilroy sacked?

Yes they were Irish players

FrancieBrady

pjohnson wrote: »

I know. Hell they will probably earn more now they are free from IRFU.

Yep and with a payoff in their backpocket and compo from the Beeb.

Delighted for them that they will at least be financially rewared after what they have been put through.

facehugger99

goz83 wrote: »

Why do u ask

Your thought-experiment of what scenario might unfold sounded weird is all.

givyjoe

facehugger99 wrote: »

Your thought-experiment of what scenario might unfold sounded weird is all.

Weird? You're joking right? I see the point of it completely sailed over your head.

givyjoe wrote: »

Weird? You're joking right? I see the point of it completely sailed over your head.

He is busy organising his complaint to World Rugby tbf

facehugger99 wrote: »

Your thought-experiment of what scenario might unfold sounded weird is all.

I’ve had sex once or twice in my time

Might be just how the post was written. The pad is constantly freezing since the latest update, so takes forever to write.

Point i was making is that the woman could give verbal consent every few seconds.....or there might have been no sex or contact at all. One false claim will ruin a mans life while the woman remains anonymous. To me, that’s a massive injustice which needs to be changed, but there is no appetite to correct this, because there would be whailing from the usual suspects about women not being believed.

goz83 wrote: »

I’ve had sex once or twice in my time

Might be just how the post was written. The pad is constantly freezing since the latest update, so takes forever to write.

Point i was making is that the woman could give verbal consent every few seconds.....or there might have been no sex or contact at all. One false claim will ruin a mans life while the woman remains anonymous. To me, that’s a massive injustice which needs to be changed, but there is no appetite to correct this, because there would be whailing from the usual suspects about women not being believed.

Actually defendants right to anonymity is something they should be marching for (In the North), or hashtagging or whatever...its nuts that they are named in the media...

pjohnson wrote: »

He is busy organising his complaint to World Rugby tbf

Any sign of those links?

Rubberchikken

How would a man be believed even if he did go through the consent thing before sex?
Say its done, s/he agrees, away they go.
Then later there's a change of mind and s/he cries rape. Isnt it now a 'he said, s/he said' scenario, with who to believe?

Life is really just getting tougher imo.

pjohnson wrote: »

To what?

One where I asked you to link me to where I said the two lads wouldn't find clubs.

Two, the link to prove that Andy Grey and Richard Keyes and Jermaine Pennant all managed to earn more money after they fooked up...which you suggested...only a little while ago.

Foxtrol

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I wouldn't worry too much as from their responses and the minor sanction on Gilroy this was by mutual agreement. The two either got paid off by Ulster/IRFU or decided they didn't want to deal with the mob and wanted out. Probably a win/win

Silentcorner wrote: »

One where I asked you to link me to where I said the two lads wouldn't find clubs.

Two, the link to prove that Andy Grey and Richard Keyes and Jermaine Pennant all managed to earn more money after they fooked up...which you suggested...only a little while ago.

Ah yes because everyones payslips are publicly available. Great question.

screamer

Every employer has certain standards set out for their employees as part of their contracts. Sportspeople are idolised by kids.... Did anyone seriously think this was going to end any other way?
I'm not surprised at the outcome and in fact I think the Irfu and Ulster rugby have responded in a very responsible way.

Rubberchikken wrote: »

How would a man be believed even if he did go through the consent thing before sex?
Say its done, s/he agrees, away they go.
Then later there's a change of mind and s/he cries rape. Isnt it now a 'he said, s/he said' scenario, with who to believe?

Life is really just getting tougher imo.

Its always been a he said she said when it comes to non violent rape cases.

It is not easy on either gender.

pjohnson wrote: »

Ah yes because everyones payslips are publicly available. Great question.

Well you were the one who suggested it...so you were spoofing then...right.

Silentcorner wrote: »

Actually defendants right to anonymity is something they should be marching for (In the North), or hashtagging or whatever...its nuts that they are named in the media...

Agreed. Such cases should be held in-camera, or with very strict reporting restrictions. Anyone breaking the rules should be dealt with harshly, as to break anonymity is to effectively destroy lives. Down south, the alleged victim and defendant has anonymity, but if the alleged victim agrees to be named, the defendant will also be named. The defendant has less rights than the alleged victim which flies in the face of equality and presumption of innocence.