[Deleted User] wrote: » Ironic thing is a boi ad now popping up on my boards page. :rolleyes: It can shag off :mad:
Calina wrote: » I am sympathetic but the risk a man runs of being falsely accused of rape is significantly lower than the risk a woman runs of being raped. Quite simply it is a relatively lower risk by magnitudes. And women do not get much help in the courts for rape cased because in a he said she said the benefit of the doubt tends to flow to the innocent unless proven guilty defendent. And rape victims lived are often utterly destroyed and they get no closure and that is magnitudes more likely to happen than a false rape accusation is.
hatrickpatrick wrote: » 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.
pjohnson wrote: » So you would find that doping is acceptable to be allowed by employees? Someone who was found guilty and recieved a ban is worthy of staying in employment? The IRFU happily kept a drugs cheat for kids to idolise so responsibility isn't really their thing.For some reason that never gathered attention.
pjohnson wrote: » Never did I suggest more pay during that convo. I was saying they due to ability will have no problem negotiating contracts for themselves. You were actually the one suggesting they were loosing money and couldn't negotiate due to them being "damaged"
screamer wrote: » 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.
goz83 wrote: » 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.
facehugger99 wrote: » Your thought-experiment of what scenario might unfold sounded weird is all.
Silentcorner wrote: » 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...
pjohnson wrote: » Ah yes because everyones payslips are publicly available. Great question.
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.
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.
Patww79 wrote: » This post has been deleted.
pjohnson wrote: » To what?
pjohnson wrote: » He is busy organising his complaint to World Rugby tbf
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.
givyjoe wrote: » Weird? You're joking right? I see the point of it completely sailed over your head.
goz83 wrote: » Why do u ask
pjohnson wrote: » I know. Hell they will probably earn more now they are free from IRFU.
Royal Legend wrote: » Not Irish Players though, if its the Whatsapp, then why wasn't Gilroy sacked?
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.
facehugger99 wrote: » Have you ever had sex?
goz83 wrote: » It doesnt matter if the woman said yes, yes and yes, I want you to fcuk me every 10 seconds.
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!
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/33ff51e6843dec62476295b286496533.svg)
