Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Options
1…5253555758…108

Comments

  • Options
    #1622
    tritium
    Registered Users Posts: 7,434 ✭✭✭tritium


    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


  • Options
    #1623
    facehugger99
    Registered Users Posts: 7,241 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    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


  • Options
    #1624
    upandcumming
    Registered Users Posts: 2,715 ✭✭✭upandcumming


    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 :D

    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.


  • Options
    #1625
    currants
    Registered Users Posts: 207 ✭✭currants


    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?


  • Options
    #1626
    currants
    Registered Users Posts: 207 ✭✭currants


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1627
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,121 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.


  • Options
    #1628
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    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.


  • Options
    #1629
    currants
    Registered Users Posts: 207 ✭✭currants


    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.


  • Options
    #1630
    Squatter
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,841 ✭✭✭Squatter


    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.


  • Options
    #1631
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,121 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1632
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,121 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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


  • Options
    #1633
    ArthurDayne
    Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭ArthurDayne


    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 :D

    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.


  • Options
    #1634
    goz83
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭goz83


    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.


  • Options
    #1635
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    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?


  • Options
    #1636
    facehugger99
    Registered Users Posts: 7,241 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Born again Roman Catholic morality

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


  • Options
    #1637
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,121 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.


  • Options
    #1638
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    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?


  • Options
    #1639
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,121 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.


  • Options
    #1640
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    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.


  • Options
    #1641
    facehugger99
    Registered Users Posts: 7,241 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1642
    meeeeh
    Registered Users Posts: 11,624 ✭✭✭✭meeeeh


    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?


  • Options
    #1643
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,121 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.


  • Options
    #1644
    RabbleRouser2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,283 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    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.


  • Options
    #1645
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,121 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.


  • Options
    #1646
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    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.


  • Options
    #1647
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,121 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    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.


  • Options
    #1648
    goz83
    Registered Users Posts: 8,034 ✭✭✭goz83


    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.


  • Options
    #1649
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,214 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    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.


  • Options
    #1650
    Omackeral
    Registered Users Posts: 32,956 ✭✭✭✭Omackeral


    meeeeh wrote: »
    So you think any promiscuous woman is a slut?

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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1651
    RabbleRouser2k
    Registered Users Posts: 8,283 ✭✭✭RabbleRouser2k


    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.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement