Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

I'm still not sure why there is souch outrage about the termination of their contracts when the argument is made that they were cleared in court.

The threshold for a criminal conviction in NI or this jurastiction is thankfully very high.

The threshold for getting ones employment terminated is obviously far lower.

A jury of ones peers can decide one thing but an employer can still decide that it's in their best interest to terminate your employment.

Omackeral wrote: »

They are. 100% agree with that. The amount of black cocks I've seen in my football whats'app group is needless! The language and sh*te talk I have with my own mates includes some very dark humour too that I'd uncomfortable with my family hearing. This idea that you shouldn't text things you wouln't want read aloud to strangers or at the workplace is a load of crap. People are allowed to say things if they're in private.

There is a serious mob mentality out there with double standards out the hoop. Appledreams15 is a perfect example of the double standard hypocrisy being shouted out. On this thread, she is with the mob to cause as much damage to the innocent men in Belfast. To her, the verdict was wrong because the men must be guilty.

Then if we look at her posts in the other thread about the woman who is suing the estate of a deceased family for alleged psychological injuries, Appledreams15 is disgusted by mob mentality and bravely defends the poor young woman who is apparantly not at fault for suing the estate of the decesed family....the estate which is supposed to be for the baby girl and sole survivor of the tragedy. Apples blames everyone for the girl putting in an injury claim and absolves her of any responsibility.

I am seeing a pattern here. It’s actually quite disgusting. Such bias and hypocrisy and both threads were running at the same time.

jm08 wrote: »

I heard an Irishman who lectures Sports Law in an Australian University and used to work in Queens on Saturday Sport and who has been following the Belfast trial. In the interview he spoke about a sports rape trial that was similar to the one Belfast one with an AFL player. He explained then what the AFL did to counteract the problem.

I've looked up the case which involved a player called Andrew Lovett, who was 28 at the time. He was suspended by his club when the rape was alleged, and as soon as he was charged, he was sacked by the club (St. Kilda). He was found not guilty (2011).
Summary of case is here

https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/jury-finds-lovett-not-guilty-of-rape-charges-20110725-1hwii.html

Since then, he hasn't been able to find a club and is working as a builders labourer and was recently in the news for assaulting another woman (not sexually).

Jesus, from that short piece he was proper hard done by. This naming of defendants pretrial has to stop...

ziggy wrote: »

Do you want the snowflake mob to get in a time machine to protest George Best?

No I want them get ****in jobs and get a life.

goz83 wrote: »

There is a serious mob mentality out there with double standards out the hoop. Appledreams15 is a perfect example of the double standard hypocrisy being shouted out. On this thread, she is with the mob to cause as much damage to the innocent men in Belfast. To her, the verdict was wrong because the men must be guilty.

Then if we look at her posts in the other thread about the woman who is suing the estate of a deceased family for alleged psychological injuries, Appledreams15 is disgusted by mob mentality and bravely defends the poor young woman who is apparantly not at fault for suing the estate of the decesed family....the estate which is supposed to be for the baby girl and sole survivor of the tragedy. Apples blames everyone for the girl putting in an injury claim and absolves her of any responsibility.

I am seeing a pattern here. It’s actually quite disgusting. Such bias and hypocrisy and both threads were running at the same time.

You realise stalking someone like that is creepy?

Also, your argument is bollox.

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.

To me, 'mansplaining' is a similar insult to 'you on your period, luv?' or 'someone's on the r*g'.

It's condescending, it doesn't make a point-and if you use it in convo with someone who uses the word 'mansplain' then you're going to have them call you 'sexist'-but ignore how mansplain is equally sexist.

I've heard women refer to guys as a 'sl*t' or call guys 'manwh*res' when they take gifts from ladies and never even buy those ladies dinner.

Augeo wrote: »

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.

True-but when it was Trappatoni-and 3 recycled that advert later with O'Neill-they used Brady in the advert, with Trappatoni.

Roy didn't get that luxury-cruel as it was.

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Well the IRFU and UR certainly showed a core value of camaraderie, of standing by your team mate when the chips are down, of digging deep against strong opposition is no longer held dear.
Its all about the cash.

Sacrificed on the altar of sponsor appeasment in front of a baying mob of the selfrighteously outraged for having the temerity to be acquitted.

12 months suspension to allow them reflect and atone in some fashion for their behaviour would have been plenty.

I hope they pitch up in some club and get to knock Ulster out in a Heineken cup semifinal at Ravenhill, with PJ slotting over a conversion from the corner to win it 21-20.
Karma bitches.

Reading up on that Australian case, the team mates of the player that was involved in the accusation of rape wanted him out because he let the club down. Eddie O'Sullivan said something similar about how the AIL players felt - unhappy that everyone might think that all rugby players might be like them, and very happy that it was all over.

Plenty of rugby players don't want to be tarred with the same brush and might be quite happy that they are leaving.

upandcumming wrote: »

They're as bad.

All men are bad?

joe40 wrote: »

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.

It is somewhat interesting that you opine that this point is not complicated -- yet, despite the apparent lack of complexity, I note that you did not answer the question. One imagines that, if you find this matter so straightforward, you could at least give a 'yes' or 'no' answer.

So I ask you again -- and while I appreciate you are under no obligation to answer me -- you have just said yourself that it is not complicated. I imagine then you can give me a Yes or No to the following, this now being the third time I have asked for an answer without response on this matter which is (as you say) not very complicated:


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?

skearnsot wrote: »

Jesus how many young fellas are in a what’s app group in the country texting messages like that?? Seriously!! Hope they won’t be sacked Monday

It's not just fellas either. I'm in several mixed-sex WhatsApp groups and the stuff we write in them in jest would give your average granny a f*cking heart attack. In the absence of a guilty verdict, it is wholly terrifying that the contents of such a group could be used to make decisions about these individuals' futures.

Hell, some of the kinky texts I've exchanged with partners would make them out to be monstrous b!tches of the highest order if publicised and taken out of context, and that would be about the furthest thing from the truth in every case. Private correspondence is private correspondence, end of story.

Yet another reason - as if we needed any more - why evidence and details of trials and accusations against specific individuals should remain confidential and anonymous unless those specific individuals are found guilty by a jury. It amazes me that in the age of witch hunts and The Twitterati, this has not been enshrined in law yet. It's very obvious that our system of open, public court hearings utterly fails the wrongly accused in almost every single case.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

PJ has apologised twice for his own behaviour. He knows he was in the wrong

OK so when does he get forgiven?

Appledreams15 wrote: »

The msgs the rugby guys sent were about one specific girl, a girl who launched a rape investigation.

Who was lying.
Yet manages to avoid punishment despite destroying the careers of others.

Talk about injustice.