Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

skearnsot · 16-04-2018 10:42am

meeeeh wrote: »

Then report them for indecent exposure, it still doesn't make them fair game for sexual assault.

I have absolutely no love for this type of dressing, not because it's too revealing but because it's usually bloody awful and anything but attractive. But men who have no intention to assault women won't suddenly go I can't help myself with that one.

I never said that

RabbleRouser2k · 16-04-2018 10:46am

blanch152 wrote: »

It is disturbing that non-criminal private behaviour outside their job can result in someone losing their job.

But it got into the public domain. That's the problem-the guys even admitted they screwed up. And it's not the sex acts, it's the whatsapp messages, the undisputed claims that the girl was bleeding and sent away, and the heavy drinking-which affects performance on the pitch. (A tennis player, last year I believe, got a rollicking for going on a session the a day or two before a tennis match. He had to drop out of the match, claiming injury-but it was later revealed he was hung over).

Top players have to watch themselves both in terms of diet and even alcohol consumption.

Also, the question of 'who's blood' was the photoshopped blood (never answered)-lead to more questions. 23 drinks in one night is not professional behaviour.

Some deleted messages-which many have 'guessed' as to what it might have been about-illegal activities and whatnot also raised questions.

It's funny, a few weeks back, people who supported these guys were like 'when the reporting ban is lifted, the truth will come out and they'll be redeemed'. The ban was lifted-more bad-s*** got out...and people are still trying to say it was about the sex. No, it wasn't.

A certain Dublin footballer hasn't played in several months because of off the pitch and on the pitch temper problems. Nobody's calling for his return, yet people somehow think the two boys are 'victims'.

blanch152 · 16-04-2018 10:54am

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

But it got into the public domain. That's the problem-the guys even admitted they screwed up. And it's not the sex acts, it's the whatsapp messages, the undisputed claims that the girl was bleeding and sent away, and the heavy drinking-which affects performance on the pitch. (A tennis player, last year I believe, got a rollicking for going on a session the a day or two before a tennis match. He had to drop out of the match, claiming injury-but it was later revealed he was hung over).

Top players have to watch themselves both in terms of diet and even alcohol consumption.

Also, the question of 'who's blood' was the photoshopped blood (never answered)-lead to more questions. 23 drinks in one night is not professional behaviour.

Some deleted messages-which many have 'guessed' as to what it might have been about-illegal activities and whatnot also raised questions.

It's funny, a few weeks back, people who supported these guys were like 'when the reporting ban is lifted, the truth will come out and they'll be redeemed'. The ban was lifted-more bad-s*** got out...and people are still trying to say it was about the sex. No, it wasn't.

From the reports, it seems they were more or less paid off their full contractual entitlements out to 2019.

That suggests that the IRFU knows they are wrong to sack them, but are bowing to the power of sponsors and social media mobs. Not a good day.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

A certain Dublin footballer hasn't played in several months because of off the pitch and on the pitch temper problems. Nobody's calling for his return, yet people somehow think the two boys are 'victims'.

There is nothing in the public domain that would lead to that conclusion about that Dublin footballer and the reasons why he hasn't played.

Squatter · 16-04-2018 10:57am

blanch152 wrote: »

From the reports, it seems they were more or less paid off their full contractual entitlements out to 2019. That suggests that the IRFU knows they are wrong to sack them, but are bowing to the power of sponsors and social media mobs. Not a good day.

An alternative possibility is that the IRFU was willing to pay a premium in order to get them off the books as quickly as possible.

blanch152 · 16-04-2018 10:59am

Squatter wrote: »

An alternative possibility is that the IRFU was willing to pay a premium in order to get them off the books as quickly as possible.

Either way, if the IRFU had them in breach of their contracts, there was no need for a payoff. The amount of money suggested gives the impression that they weren't in breach of their contracts and are victims of sponsors and the social media mob.

facehugger99 · 16-04-2018 11:02am

blanch152 wrote: »

That suggests that the IRFU knows they are wrong to sack them, but are bowing to the power of sponsors and social media mobs. Not a good day.

It suggests nothing of the sort. It's quite normal to pay people off to get rid of them. Happens all the time.
Cleaner and quicker.

RabbleRouser2k · 16-04-2018 11:03am

blanch152 wrote: »

From the reports, it seems they were more or less paid off their full contractual entitlements out to 2019.

That suggests that the IRFU knows they are wrong to sack them, but are bowing to the power of sponsors and social media mobs. Not a good day.

Even Exeter won't touch Stuart Olding-there's been little to no talk about Jackson atm. He was fairly quick to talk to the papers, but things have quietened down enormously for him.

There is nothing in the public domain that would lead to that conclusion about that Dublin footballer and the reasons why he hasn't played.

He was found guilty of assault, admitted guilt and apologised to the victim. He was thus spared a jail sentence. Was meant to pay compo, still hasn't-and is currently being pursued for it by the victim. That's been covered in the papers.

Things got quiet for him, frankly. He was listed as starting in the most recent Dublin game-never made it onto the pitch. Very odd.

ohnonotgmail · 16-04-2018 11:08am

blanch152 wrote: »

From the reports, it seems they were more or less paid off their full contractual entitlements out to 2019.

That suggests that the IRFU knows they are wrong to sack them, but are bowing to the power of sponsors and social media mobs. Not a good day.

which reports suggested they were paid off to the end of next season?

FrancieBrady · 16-04-2018 11:10am

facehugger99 wrote: »

It suggests nothing of the sort. It's quite normal to pay people off to get rid of them. Happens all the time.
Cleaner and quicker.

It most certainly suggests they were not in breach of contract. The same applies to a premiership manager. He is bought off because he is not in breach.

Appledreams15 · 16-04-2018 11:12am

Omackeral wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I like men...outside Ireland. Very happy where I am right now

But if they’re not all misogynistic rapists wherever you are (cloud cuckoo land would by my guess btw) why did you feel the need to wait outside your co-worker’s place in a place outside Ireland, where the men know how to treat women.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I noticed today that I did something different because of this thread. My colleague asked to go for a walk with me today, to a river.

On the way he asked to stop at his appartment to pick up something. I said, ok, I will wait for you outside. And I did.

I realise, especially after reading some of the comments on this thread, "she shouldnt have gone to his house" etc., that I am not safe going into a man's appartment, and that I must protect myself.

Unless you’re telling porkies...

No I am very happy.
But I have learned from this thread to protect myself more. No harm in that

Squatter · 16-04-2018 11:12am

blanch152 wrote: »

Either way, if the IRFU had them in breach of their contracts, there was no need for a payoff. The amount of money suggested gives the impression that they weren't in breach of their contracts and are victims of sponsors and the social media mob.

An alternative scenario is that if the "top shaggers" had decided to go to court to contest the decision the case might have dragged on for a number of years and cost the IRFU a significant sum as well as keeping the case alive in the media; it would also have affected the players' chances of obtaining alternative employment before the end of their IRFU contracts. So, all in all, there would probably have been no real winners at the end of the day.

Hence the speedy exit was probably the most pragmatic option for both sides.

FrancieBrady · 16-04-2018 11:19am

Squatter wrote: »

An alternative scenario is that if the "top shaggers" had decided to go to court to contest the decision the case might have dragged on for a number of years and cost the IRFU a significant sum as well as keeping the case alive in the media; it would also have affected the players' chances of obtaining alternative employment before the end of their IRFU contracts. So, all in all, there would probably have been no real winners at the end of the day.

Hence the speedy exit was probably the most pragmatic option for both sides.

No. That would then be compensation
They have bought out their contracts which means they were not in breach. Probably a bit on top too as an inducement.

goz83 · 16-04-2018 11:23am

Appledreams15 wrote: »

No I am very happy.
But I have learned from this thread to protect myself more. No harm in that

You don't seem happy. Bitter and resentful I would say based on your posts about men.

Omackeral · 16-04-2018 11:33am

Appledreams15 wrote: »

No I am very happy.
But I have learned from this thread to protect myself more. No harm in that

Ok but be careful walking down by the river with men, some of them may have Irish heritage.

Omackeral · 16-04-2018 11:36am

goz83 wrote: »

You don't seem happy. Bitter and resentful I would say based on your posts about men.

No that’s untrue, it’s just Irish men. In fairness, we are all uneducated troglodytes with abhorrent views on our dear sisters, mothers, wives, girlfriends, daughters, co-workers and friends. Utter misogynists all round.

blanch152 · 16-04-2018 11:37am

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

He was found guilty of assault, admitted guilt and apologised to the victim. He was thus spared a jail sentence. Was meant to pay compo, still hasn't-and is currently being pursued for it by the victim. That's been covered in the papers.

Things got quiet for him, frankly. He was listed as starting in the most recent Dublin game-never made it onto the pitch. Very odd.

He wasn't listed as starting in the most recent Dublin game - that was a club game.

The rest of your post refers to issues that were dealt with quite some time ago.

blanch152 · 16-04-2018 11:41am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

which reports suggested they were paid off to the end of next season?

Squatter wrote: »

An alternative scenario is that if the "top shaggers" had decided to go to court to contest the decision the case might have dragged on for a number of years and cost the IRFU a significant sum as well as keeping the case alive in the media; it would also have affected the players' chances of obtaining alternative employment before the end of their IRFU contracts. So, all in all, there would probably have been no real winners at the end of the day.

Hence the speedy exit was probably the most pragmatic option for both sides.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/other-rugby/paddy-jackson-paid-off-close-to-his-contract-value-in-irfu-exit-deal-36807827.html

The IRFU wanted rid of them because of the social media mob and the sponsors. They paid off most of their contract, probably less an amount equivalent to the suspension given to Craig Gilroy.

If the IRFU were in the right, they could have fired them without compensation.

Infini · 16-04-2018 11:45am

facehugger99 wrote: »

It suggests nothing of the sort. It's quite normal to pay people off to get rid of them. Happens all the time.
Cleaner and quicker.

It looks more to me that it's a benefit to everyone to just cancel and payoff the contract and let them join a team somewhere else till all this carry-on blow's over. They ain't no saint's but the biggest problem I can see with all this is Cancer media is turning too many people in raving loony idiots with no cop on.

There's also a severe skewed though that all men are predators and all women are victims which is a load of bollocks. For ever man looking for their hole there's equally a woman looking for their pole. What's worse is that simple accusations can be used to destroy a person rather than waiting for an actual court to decide that and that's not something I like either.

I swear Einstein was right to say the one constant in the universe is Human Stupidity.

Tigger · 16-04-2018 11:46am

meeeeh wrote: »

Then report them for indecent exposure, it still doesn't make them fair game for sexual assault.

I have absolutely no love for this type of dressing, not because it's too revealing but because it's usually bloody awful and anything but attractive. But men who have no intention to assault women won't suddenly go I can't help myself with that one.

Young wans wearing half nothing is irrelevant to them being interfered with in any way shape or form if I had a daughter and she wanted to dress like that if not like it but I’d accept it

However ! Getting soo drunk that you are not 100% in control of a situation and then being in a situation where things get out of hand is a bad idea
If you are male the chances of being in a fight or getting mugged will go up exponentionally and if you are female the chances of sexual assault go up

currants · 16-04-2018 11:54am

skearnsot wrote: »

I would also like to say that the way young women dress (or forget to dress) is absolutely appalling! I’m NOT SAYING THEY ARE ASKING FOR TROUBLE before the feminazi brigade start spewing about rights and equality etc BUUUUUUT if they are going out with their wares on display like it or not they’re sending a message albeit unconsciously!! If men went out so scantily clad one thinks they’d be done for indecent exposure
Add that to drink & drugs etc on both sides - yikes

What about all those blokes going topless in the summer? None of them get done for indecent exposure do they? You sound like somebody from the 1960's

Girls and women should be able to wear whatever the f*ck they like without being held responsible for the "unconscious messages" dirty-minded people think they're sending. What "wares" are "on display" anyway-unless you think of the female body as a commodity. Jesus, this thread is so depressing.
Women who think sexual violence is not justifiable by the amount a victim has had to drink or the shortness of her skirt or low-cut of her top are labelled "feminazis"- and by other women too.
Keep drinking the kool aid ladies and get back into the kitchen and make some more when you're done. Keep your daughters in line by telling them they're somewhat responsible if anyone attacks them.

I don't know exactly what Jackson and co did that night, they didn't seem to know themselves a there were conflicting stories yet nobody has called them out for behaving irresponsibly by removing items of clothing, their lack of judgement in being in the circumstances where they could be accused of rape and their extreme alcohol use. The type of blind support they are getting here is scary.

tritium · 16-04-2018 11:56am

Looking like Paddy Jackson may end up with Clermont

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.sportsjoe.ie/amp/rugby/multiple-reports-link-paddy-jackson-french-giants-156916

Wow that’s a hell of an opportunity for any player. Serious money too I’d imagine

facehugger99 · 16-04-2018 11:59am

blanch152 wrote: »

The IRFU wanted rid of them because of the social media mob and the sponsors.

There's plenty of reasons the IRFU wanted rid of them, the most relevant being the behavior of the 2 lads themselves.

I suspect both PJ and SO have more understanding of their own role in their downfall than you do.

Blaming the boogie man just doesn't cut it

upandcumming · 16-04-2018 12:01pm

currants wrote: »

What about all those blokes going topless in the summer? None of them get done for indecent exposure do they? You sound like somebody from the 1960's

Girls and women should be able to wear whatever the f*ck they like without being held responsible for the "unconscious messages" dirty-minded people think they're sending. What "wares" are "on display" anyway-unless you think of the female body as a commodity. Jesus, this thread is so depressing.
Women who think sexual violence is not justifiable by the amount a victim has had to drink or the shortness of her skirt or low-cut of her top are labelled "feminazis"- and by other women too.
Keep drinking the kool aid ladies and get back into the kitchen and make some more when you're done. Keep your daughters in line by telling them they're somewhat responsible if anyone attacks them.

I don't know exactly what Jackson and co did that night, they didn't seem to know themselves a there were conflicting stories yet nobody has called them out for behaving irresponsibly by removing items of clothing, their lack of judgement in being in the circumstances where they could be accused of rape and their extreme alcohol use. The type of blind support they are getting here is scary.

And the blind abuse and delight in their careers being ruined in this country is far worse.

currants · 16-04-2018 12:04pm

upandcumming wrote: »

And the blind abuse and delight in their careers being ruined in this country is far worse.

Do you really think its far worse for a player to lose his career after a series of, at best, extremely ill-judged events than for a young woman to leave an encounter crying and bleeding and believing she's been raped?

currants · 16-04-2018 12:07pm

tritium wrote: »

Looking like Paddy Jackson may end up with Clermont

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.sportsjoe.ie/amp/rugby/multiple-reports-link-paddy-jackson-french-giants-156916

Wow that’s a hell of an opportunity for any player. Serious money too I’d imagine

You're right, PJ should be thanking that girl and all those nasty SJWs and feminazis for the opportunities she's unwittingly provided him with.

This siege mentality is so wrong, so wilfully blind.

FrancieBrady · 16-04-2018 12:12pm

currants wrote: »

Do you really think its far worse for a player to lose his career after a series of, at best, extremely ill-judged events than for a young woman to leave an encounter crying and bleeding and believing she's been raped?

Why would there be a comparison?

Is the justice required by the mob, an eye for an eye, even though the court found them not guilty.

meeeeh · 16-04-2018 12:15pm

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/other-rugby/paddy-jackson-paid-off-close-to-his-contract-value-in-irfu-exit-deal-36807827.html

The IRFU wanted rid of them because of the social media mob and the sponsors. They paid off most of their contract, probably less an amount equivalent to the suspension given to Craig Gilroy.

If the IRFU were in the right, they could have fired them without compensation.

Actually your link states they had a choice of accepting pay out or going through dragged out disciplinary procedure at the end of it they would be probably sacked. (as per link) Agreeing to the payout was smarter option for both sides because it would avoid protracted negative publicity. If anything 'social media mob' helped the boys getting some payment.

A source close to the deal explained: "During the investigation the players met with IRFU bosses and were told that there would be a disciplinary process ahead. It was made clear that in the end they would most likely have their contracts terminated.
"If they had gone through that process, it would have taken weeks and all of the spots on teams in the UK and France would have been filled by the time it was all over.
"The players wanted nothing more than to continue playing for their country but faced with that prospect, both sides decided to spare themselves that and enter into a 'compromise agreement'. The lads felt it would avert the long and drawn-out disciplinary process that was likely to end only one way.

currants · 16-04-2018 12:18pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would there be a comparison?

Is the justice required by the mob, an eye for an eye, even though the court found them not guilty.

The comparison was made by upandcumming.
I'm not part of the mob so I don't know how they're thinking but reading this it seems Jackson and co's personal responsibility hasn't been mentioned but much focus has been put on the girls- why is she supposed to take responsibility for her actions but they aren't?
Any professional person will have morals clauses in their contract of employment and if you bring your employer into disrepute you can be terminated- accountants, lawyers, public servants etc. The Whatsapp messages did for them, not the trial.

Squatter · 16-04-2018 12:21pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Is the justice required by the mob, an eye for an eye, even though the court found them not guilty.

Thing is, Francie pet, that for many of us, the world is a teenchy-weenchy bigger larger than the courtroom.

FrancieBrady · 16-04-2018 12:23pm

currants wrote: »

The comparison was made by upandcumming.
I'm not part of the mob so I don't know how they're thinking but reading this it seems Jackson and co's personal responsibility hasn't been mentioned but much focus has been put on the girls- why is she supposed to take responsibility for her actions but they aren't?
Any professional person will have morals clauses in their contract of employment and if you bring your employer into disrepute you can be terminated- accountants, lawyers, public servants etc. The Whatsapp messages did for them, not the trial.

So how come Craig Gilroy is still in his position?

The players took responsibility. They turned up in court and disproved the complainants allegation

FrancieBrady · 16-04-2018 12:28pm

Squatter wrote: »

Thing is, Francie pet, that for many of us, the world is a teenchy-weenchy bigger larger than the courtroom.

Yeh, sure it is.
So large you want to spend your time tut tutting in other people's bedrooms.
Born again Roman Catholic morality

ArthurDayne · 16-04-2018 12:28pm

currants wrote: »

What about all those blokes going topless in the summer? None of them get done for indecent exposure do they? You sound like somebody from the 1960's

Girls and women should be able to wear whatever the f*ck they like without being held responsible for the "unconscious messages" dirty-minded people think they're sending. What "wares" are "on display" anyway-unless you think of the female body as a commodity. Jesus, this thread is so depressing.
Women who think sexual violence is not justifiable by the amount a victim has had to drink or the shortness of her skirt or low-cut of her top are labelled "feminazis"- and by other women too.
Keep drinking the kool aid ladies and get back into the kitchen and make some more when you're done. Keep your daughters in line by telling them they're somewhat responsible if anyone attacks them.

I don't know exactly what Jackson and co did that night, they didn't seem to know themselves a there were conflicting stories yet nobody has called them out for behaving irresponsibly by removing items of clothing, their lack of judgement in being in the circumstances where they could be accused of rape and their extreme alcohol use. The type of blind support they are getting here is scary.

Agree with everything you say -- until the final paragraph. It is somewhat frustrating that you have actually explicitly made the point that you don't know exactly what happened that night -- only to then criticise those who are 'blindly supporting' the players, but not those who are also blindly stating that they believe everything the accuser has said. If you don't know what happened -- then you are as blind as anyone else, and one would therefore imagine that your view would be more balanced as a result.

And to point out, for some of us who are writing here, it is not a matter of supporting the players -- it is simply a matter of putting the case forward that the issue has been turned into a black-and-white battle, and that it is setting what may be a concerning and dangerous precedent that we can all be held not only accountable for what we say in private, but also liable, even if our words or terms used were in jest.

goz83 · 16-04-2018 12:29pm

currants wrote: »

The comparison was made by upandcumming.
I'm not part of the mob so I don't know how they're thinking but reading this it seems Jackson and co's personal responsibility hasn't been mentioned but much focus has been put on the girls- why is she supposed to take responsibility for her actions but they aren't?
Any professional person will have morals clauses in their contract of employment and if you bring your employer into disrepute you can be terminated- accountants, lawyers, public servants etc. The Whatsapp messages did for them, not the trial.

You clearly haven't been following the thread at all then. A large portion of it is exactly about what you say it isn't.

meeeeh · 16-04-2018 12:49pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh, sure it is.
So large you want to spend your time tut tutting in other people's bedrooms.
Born again Roman Catholic morality

You keep saying that. Do you really think people are discussed because of threesome? Do you really not find anything else in their behavior despicable? Is your pet name for your wife a slut? Would you call her that when talking to your friends? Would you call yourself top shagger if she cried and bled after sex with you?

facehugger99 · 16-04-2018 12:51pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Born again Roman Catholic morality

Wow, it's like you really 'get me'.

FrancieBrady · 16-04-2018 12:59pm

meeeeh wrote: »

You keep saying that. Do you really think people are discussed because of threesome? Do you really not find anything else in their behavior despicable? Is your pet name for your wife a slut? Would you call her that when talking to your friends? Would you call yourself top shagger if she cried and bled after sex with you?

That is the point.
I don't call my wife a slut because she isn't promiscuous.

Nobody has as yet provided a politically correct, feminist approved slang word for a promiscuous woman.
I demand that we be allowed to describe different types of people without being accused of insulting or demeaning all types of people.
Women need to stop snowflaking about these things.

meeeeh · 16-04-2018 1:02pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is the point.
I don't call my wife a slut because she isn't promiscuous.

Nobody has as yet provided a politically correct, feminist approved slang word for a promiscuous woman.
I demand that we be allowed to describe different types of people without being accused of insulting or demeaning all types of people.
Women need to stop snowflaking about these things.

So you think any promiscuous woman is a slut?

Btw do all of you who were in favor of Ireland and Ulster retaining the two players agree with this?

FrancieBrady · 16-04-2018 1:16pm

meeeeh wrote: »

So you think any promiscuous woman is a slut?

Btw do all of you who were in favor of Ireland and Ulster retaining the two players agree with this?

A 'slut' is a promiscuous woman by definition.
These lads were looking for promiscuous women so by definition they were looking for and enjoying sluts.

The offence has been 'taken' here, not given. No woman was ever intended to hear their use of a slang word for something that exists.

Faugheen · 16-04-2018 1:20pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A 'slut' is a promiscuous woman by definition.
These lads were looking for promiscuous women so by definition they were looking for and enjoying sluts.

The offence has been 'taken' here, not given. No woman was ever intended to hear their use of a slang word for something that exists.

Still waiting for your apology after you said I was implying that Jackson and Olding used force on her.

facehugger99 · 16-04-2018 1:22pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

.

Nobody has as yet provided a politically correct, feminist approved slang word for a promiscuous woman.
I demand that we be allowed to describe different types of people without being accused of insulting or demeaning all types of people.

Why do you need to dehumanize people?

A person behavior and their identity are separate.

Why would you even care about someones sexual promescuity? It's none of your business and you don't have a right to label people because of it.

meeeeh · 16-04-2018 1:23pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A 'slut' is a promiscuous woman by definition.
These lads were looking for promiscuous women so by definition they were looking for and enjoying sluts.

The offence has been 'taken' here, not given. No woman was ever intended to hear their use of a slang word for something that exists.

It's also inherently degrading word. So do you think it's ok to describe promiscuous women with degrading words?

FrancieBrady · 16-04-2018 1:23pm

Faugheen wrote: »

Still waiting for your apology after you said I was implying that Jackson and Olding used force on her.

Why would 'big strong rugby men' 'surround' somebody.
The implication was clearly there.
You again later clarified that you were imagining.
So that cleared that up.
Just keeping you honest and no apologies for that.

RabbleRouser2k · 16-04-2018 1:23pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

That is the point.
I don't call my wife a slut because she isn't promiscuous.

Nobody has as yet provided a politically correct, feminist approved slang word for a promiscuous woman.
I demand that we be allowed to describe different types of people without being accused of insulting or demeaning all types of people.
Women need to stop snowflaking about these things.

Isn't it usually 'empowered' or 'liberated' woman? That's the so-called slang.

Sadly, even guys get called 'sluts' so it's not universally accepted. I saw someone attribute that to reality tv, that girls who are supposed to be friends will shout 'but you're a slut tho' because of tv.

I don't really know though-most people don't really watch tv nowadays.

FrancieBrady · 16-04-2018 1:28pm

meeeeh wrote: »

It's also inherently degrading word. So do you think it's ok to describe promiscuous with degrading words?

You are taking the offence on behalf of your gender. My description is of one woman or a small group not ALL women.
Sorry, I require the ability to describe people without fear of offending a (an increasingly snowrlaking) gender.

Faugheen · 16-04-2018 1:33pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Why would 'big strong rugby men' 'surround' somebody.
The implication was clearly there.
You again later clarified that you were imagining.
So that cleared that up.
Just keeping you honest and no apologies for that.

So at no point was she in the same room as Stuart Olding and Paddy Jackson, how does that work? They just stood beside her and did nothing, did they?

I made it very clear that I was talking from her point of view that she found herself in a situation she possibly felt intimidated by (again, through no fault of Jackson or Olding).

You're the only one who made any conclusion that I was implying they were using force. You saw the phrase 'big, strong rugby players' and you nearly had a heart attack.

Earlier, you said I was referring to 'nasty' defence tactics, when I didn't even criticise what the defence were doing. You're seeing something you don't like and you're trying to point out something that isn't there.

Apology, now.

FrancieBrady · 16-04-2018 1:38pm

Faugheen wrote: »

So at no point was she in the same room as Stuart Olding and Paddy Jackson, how does that work? They just stood beside her and did nothing, did they?

I made it very clear that I was talking from her point of view that she found herself in a situation she possibly felt intimidated by (again, through no fault of Jackson or Olding).

You're the only one who made any conclusion that I was implying they were using force. You saw the phrase 'big, strong rugby players' and you nearly had a heart attack.

Earlier, you said I was referring to 'nasty' defence tactics, when I didn't even criticise what the defence were doing. You're seeing something you don't like and you're trying to point out something that isn't there.

Apology, now.

Go back, read your original posts on the above.

There is no way they were clear, hence my interjection, hence your clarification, hence my objection was removed.

goz83 · 16-04-2018 1:42pm

meeeeh wrote: »

So you think any promiscuous woman is a slut?

Btw do all of you who were in favor of Ireland and Ulster retaining the two players agree with this?

Slut is a word used for promiscuous people....not just women. It's also used in gest. If the show fits...

facehugger99 wrote: »

Why do you need to dehumanize people?

A person behavior and their identity are separate.

Why would you even care about someones sexual promescuity? It's none of your business and you don't have a right to label people because of it.

A persons behaviour is a reflection of the person. Sure, there might be one-offs which are never to be seen again, but ongoing behaviours are a true reflection of the individual and/or group.

People are labelled all the time, sometimes unjustly. People are called sluts, legends, bastards, scumbags, misogynists and so on. Conversations would be difficult to have in some instances were we unable to use labels. Labels are a way to cut through the PC sh1te we wrap ourselves in these days.

Faugheen wrote: »

So at no point was she in the same room as Stuart Olding and Paddy Jackson, how does that work? They just stood beside her and did nothing, did they?

I made it very clear that I was talking from her point of view that she found herself in a situation she possibly felt intimidated by (again, through no fault of Jackson or Olding).

You're the only one who made any conclusion that I was implying they were using force. You saw the phrase 'big, strong rugby players' and you nearly had a heart attack.

Earlier, you said I was referring to 'nasty' defence tactics, when I didn't even criticise what the defence were doing. You're seeing something you don't like and you're trying to point out something that isn't there.

Apology, now.

TBF, the implication was there when you suggested "big strong rugby players". I don't see that it could mean anything else other than fear of being forced to do something.

You also can't put yourself in the complainants shoes and imagine what she might have felt. It's unhelpful speculation at best.

ohnonotgmail · 16-04-2018 1:42pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yeh, sure it is.
So large you want to spend your time tut tutting in other people's bedrooms.
Born again Roman Catholic morality

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You are taking the offence on behalf of your gender. My description is of one woman or a small group not ALL women.
Sorry, I require the ability to describe people without fear of offending a (an increasingly snowrlaking) gender.

you complain about roman catholic morality but do not see an issue in describing a woman using a term that most find degrading. does not compute.

Omackeral · 16-04-2018 1:43pm

meeeeh wrote: »

So you think any promiscuous woman is a slut?

I think that's literally what it's defined as?

RabbleRouser2k · 16-04-2018 1:44pm

blanch152 wrote: »

He wasn't listed as starting in the most recent Dublin game - that was a club game.

The rest of your post refers to issues that were dealt with quite some time ago.

Not since November of last year-he's being sued.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/circuit-court/dublin-football-star-diarmuid-connolly-acted-despicably-1.3279070

Still hasn't been resolved.

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Comments