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

erica74

I'm not really surprised by this decision, the brand are protecting their brand, they get to come out of this looking great, it looks like they have meted out the justice that many wanted and in the process make themselves look like they have values not in line with what the players did and said. It's really a win win for the brand, you can't deny that.

racso1975

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

That got his contract terminated but with compensation (we assume), but he still has the ability to earn a living as a professional elsewhere.

Possibly not if they were released on the grounds of gross misconduct

Edit: They did my apologies

[Deleted User]

BBDBB wrote: »

I doubt it, money isnt everything after all

Getting sacked is a situation they got themselves into, they are innocent of the crime, but as Jackon himself has said his

"behaviour has fallen far short of the values expected of me as an intentional player, a role model for the game of rugby"

That got his contract terminated but with compensation (we assume), but he still has the ability to earn a living as a professional elsewhere.

Their lives are far from ruined.

Wheeliebin30

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think that it was their actions and behavior following those actions that ruined their careers.

What behavior and actions did they do that was illegal?

I’ll await your answer.

Tell me how

BoJack Horseman wrote:

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

How was she lying?

There's a difference between subjective opinions and provable facts. The court of law is civilisations attempt to come a decision so everyone can proceed.

Because they weren't found guilty, doesn't make her a liar.

BBDBB

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

So at that point will people stop saying that their lives have been ruined ?

I doubt it, money isnt everything after all

[Deleted User]

BBDBB wrote: »

that glee will be short lived once it gets leaked how much both have been paid to go quietly and how much their new salaries will be at their new clubs.
Even if that amount is not 100% accurately reported

So at that point will people stop saying that their lives have been ruined ?

BBDBB

pjohnson wrote: »

I think we all know how you feel. You struggled with the justice from the start. Strange considering how some were saying there are no winners but now they are hounded out of the country people are "so delighted"

that glee will be short lived once it gets leaked how much both have been paid to go quietly and how much their new salaries will be at their new clubs.
Even if that amount is not 100% accurately reported

[Deleted User]

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

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

Talk about injustice.

I think that it was their actions and behavior following those actions that ruined their careers.

BoJack Horseman

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.

pjohnson

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I am just so delighted.

Someone asked me do I agree with the verdict. Apparantly I am not allowed to say. Mods said to be very careful with wording.

I think we all know how you feel. You struggled with the justice from the start. Strange considering how some were saying there are no winners but now they are hounded out of the country people are "so delighted"

racso1975

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

I am just so delighted.

Someone asked me do I agree with the verdict. Apparantly I am not allowed to say. Mods said to be very careful with wording.

But I am delighted that they got some punishment.

To other people on here saying they exchange similiar messages, they all sound like quite general jokes.

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

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

hatrickpatrick

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.

hatrickpatrick

Deleted User wrote: »

I suppose once that was submitted as evidence it was fair game though.

That's the case, but it isn't right on any level. Evidence submitted in court shouldn't be published unless the accused is found guilty as far as I'm concerned - because these private conversations would never have become public at all if there hadn't been an unfounded allegation of rape made against the defendants.

Anybody claiming that employers should have the right to sack people based on private correspondence - correspondence which has nothing to do with work, I might add - just because that correspondence leaks into the public domain through no fault of the person who wrote it should think very, very carefully about what they're actually advocating. People should have the right to say whatever they want in private and off the clock without facing professional consequences.

ArthurDayne

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?

RabbleRouser2k

work wrote: »

All men are bad?

One of the papers had an article about a 'Waterford born porn star'...and I just really had to facepalm.

So they make a whole hooplah about the 'objectification of women', and the rugby atmosphere...and then decide to promote this guy?

They do know that porn treats women absolutely despicably, right?-the injuries claimed to have occurred during the Belfast trial are a common occurrence in porn. Many starlets have to take pain meds to get through filming because of it.

And after all of the hooplah over negative portrayals of women in porn, teach people about consent etc...some people are clueless.

work

upandcumming wrote: »

They're as bad.

All men are bad?

RabbleRouser2k

cloudatlas wrote: »

Why are players like Brian O'Driscoll so loved by the populace but Olding and Jackson are not... quite the head scratcher there.... pardon me I have to go now and consider that because it's extemely difficult to understand. Bank of Ireland must be controlled by the feminazi that is the only explanation! Bunch of brazzers, sluts!

Is he tho? I remember a lot of people thought he was a bit of a toff. Him and Glenda were a pain in the buttocks.
He's gone quiet lately-I do remember him discussing many of the 'initiations' players would get into in rugby.
He also had that bleach hair-and the 'calendar' photoshoot or whatever it was. :rolleyes:

Paul O'Connell and Ronan O'Gara were more humble-ditto Johnny Sexton.

O'Driscoll was around in the days of the Meteor Awards, and the Celtic Tiger-and Gavin Lambe Murphy...and was sponsored by a certain sports drink, and lord did he whore that product when he was being paid to. Every game, photo op, post game interview etc.

Gilson, too, made a ton of money off of their relationship-even pumped a lot of it into her businesses (that failed, badly). Huberman might be annoying, but dear God-Glenda was everywhere.

Roger Hassenforder

jm08 wrote: »

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.

Lovetts rape charge was the final straw for the club. A bit different

upandcumming

jm08 wrote: »

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

They're as bad.

jm08

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.

goz83

upandcumming wrote: »

You're questioning someone else looking through the posts of another user on a public forum, but see no issue in the private texts messages being used to ruin two people's international careers.

Baffling.

Ah sure its grand. I know what I am and what I am not. You know what they say about the person who smells the fart first and asks who did it.

To clarify, I was reading the other thread, then saw a couple of hypocratic posts from Apples which raised a big question. Saved myself time and viewed other posts from her in that thread. Couldn’t believe it. Was like a 180 schizophrenic turn from this thread. The common ground was that she was 100% supporting the females in both threads.

Roger Hassenforder

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.

upandcumming

Grayson wrote: »

You realise stalking someone like that is creepy?

You're questioning someone else looking through the posts of another user on a public forum, but see no issue in the private texts messages being used to ruin two people's international careers.

Baffling.

RabbleRouser2k

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.

goz83

Grayson wrote: »

You realise stalking someone like that is creepy?

Also, your argument is bollox.

Stalking? Yeah, ok buddy. Care to challenge my statement, or is bollox all you’ve got?

Grayson

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.

jm08

Silentcorner wrote: »

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

No other club would take him on even though he was found not guilty.

I thought this bit was interesting though:

The former footballer said he felt his then St Kilda teammates treated him harshly by accusing him straight away and that was why he left the apartment."That's when I got a bit defensive ... I thought I was a bit harsh done by. Everyone was all saying stuff and saying, you know, 'How could you bring the club down like this?' and all that kinda jazz.
"And I said 'Look, I haven't done anything wrong, mate. I swear to God' and I was pretty honest about that."
The jury also acquitted Lovett of an alternative third count of rape in which the prosecution alleged he failed to stop having sex after the woman said to stop.
Judge Meryl Sexton thanked the jurors for the way they had conducted themselves during the trial.

Greysquirel09

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.