Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Cushie Butterfield · 17-04-2018 10:17AM

joe40 wrote: »

There is a really false equivalence been put forward here between a poster using the word coloured, without realising it caused offence, and the contents of the whatsapp messages in question.
Did anyone actually read the article it was the well respected actor benedict Cumberbatch that used the term, and apologised when he realised it was offensive. No further action required it was totally unintentional and that was accepted
Compare that to the attitude of some people here that argue that the word "slut" should not be offensive, even if others find it extremely offensive.

Yes, I suppose you’re right, especially considering that the use of the term slut isn’t even a racially offensive term.

The lesson here is that if anyone (in this case the poster who uses racially offensive terms) attempts to portray themselves as squeaky clean or a moral guardian they’d want to filter their language & terminology to reflect that.

As for Benedict Cumberbatch, as you say he apologised for using the term when he realised it was offensive. The poster is yet to apologise for the racial slur, & merely said ‘fair enough if it’s not correct’. If the players had said ‘fair enough if it’s not correct’ you can bet your house some people would have another field day.

It’s all very well taking the moral high ground & being cyber-outraged but if someone is going to criticise other people for using offensive language it’s better for their forum cred if they don’t do so themselves in the very same thread.

That’s my opinion. You seem to disagree. So be it!

jm08 · 17-04-2018 11:00AM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

It's racist. Commonly used in the American south and apartheid South Africa. Surprised you didn't know this. Didn't you say you were a teacher or worked with young people? (Apologies if I've mixed you up with another poster).

'Coloured' is not racist in South Africa (there is an whole ethnic group different from black South Africans).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloureds

It is in the US though.

jm08 · 17-04-2018 11:31AM

joe40 wrote: »

There is a really false equivalence been put forward here between a poster using the word coloured, without realising it caused offence, and the contents of the whatsapp messages in question.
Did anyone actually read the article it was the well respected actor benedict Cumberbatch that used the term, and apologised when he realised it was offensive. No further action required it was totally unintentional and that was accepted
Compare that to the attitude of some people here that argue that the word "slut" should not be offensive, even if others find it extremely offensive.

'Coloured' is offensive in the US because of the signs you would typically get to indicate where blacks should sit (back of bus, separate toilets etc).

You are creating a problem for blacks and coloureds (who may not want to be categorised as black) from the continent of Africa/Europe who have no experience of this kind of segregation.

Yeah_Right · 17-04-2018 12:03PM

jm08 wrote: »

'Coloured' is not racist in South Africa (there is an whole ethnic group different from black South Africans).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloureds

It is in the US though.

True. I did think of that but its still a hangover from apartheid isn't it?

Also the post wrote coloured not Coloured. I was highly offended by the post (on behalf of all black and mixed race people) but I am willing to accept a heartfelt apology from the OP and move on

Jimbob1977 · 17-04-2018 12:09PM

jm08 wrote: »

'Coloured' is not racist in South Africa (there is an whole ethnic group different from black South Africans).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coloureds

It is in the US though.

The organisation that represents African Americans' interests is called the NAACP. It still hasn't changed its name.

National Association for the Advancement of Coloured People.

It's quite amazing that such a prominent civil rights organisation would retain the old name.... which would be a 'no no' in everyday life

Appledreams15 · 17-04-2018 12:13PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Isn't it a terrible day for justice when men accused of rape and found not guilty end up losing their livelihoods?

No it's a great day for justice when men who talk about women like they are animals, lose their livelihoods.

A lesson to all.

meeeeh · 17-04-2018 12:28PM

Appledreams15 wrote: »

No it's a great day for justice when men who talk about women like they are animals, lose their livelihoods.

A lesson to all.

Calm down, they are out of Irish/Ulster team but there is no need for continued flogging. The issue was dealt with now they have the right to go on with their lives.

upandcumming · 17-04-2018 12:30PM

Appledreams15 wrote: »

No it's a great day for justice when men who talk about women like they are animals, lose their livelihoods.

A lesson to all.

Sorry, what did they say to get that description?

ArthurDayne · 17-04-2018 12:42PM

Appledreams15 wrote: »

No it's a great day for justice when men who talk about women like they are animals, lose their livelihoods.

A lesson to all.

Appledreams, have you ever used the word 'bitch' to describe anyone? Bitch of course being a comparison of a woman to a female dog -- a word which is
by definition a dehumanising metaphor.

Of course, your moral sanctimoniousness would suggest to me that you are indeed an exemplar of moral perfection at all times, both in your public and private persona. Though I do wonder how many of your friends and family use the term 'bitch' on a daily basis.

I presume you would gladly have them all deprived of their livelihoods as part of your great Inquisition on private conversations? Again -- I fully expect that someone of your undoubted moral perfection would surely not be a hypocrite -- but perhaps you could confirm to silence any suggestion that you are . . .

facehugger99 · 17-04-2018 12:47PM

meeeeh wrote: »

What they don't realize, is that the biggest favor they could do to Olding and Jackson is to let the story die. Longer this is in media longer clubs will be reluctant to talk to them.

I suspect they're more interested in signalling their outrage than actually concerned about the players.

jm08 · 17-04-2018 12:55PM

Yeah_Right wrote: »

True. I did think of that but its still a hangover from apartheid isn't it?

It probably is, but my understanding is that the C/coloureds thought they were a cut above the blacks and had their own apartheid thing going on!

JupiterKid · 17-04-2018 01:10PM

It’s clear that Jackson and Olding’s rugby careers are now over. Clubs in Britain or France won’t take them and they’d even be lucky to play for any club in SA or Oz and New Zealand.

Best for them to go away for a while, do a bit of soul searching, let the story fade out and try for another career. Do they have third level qualifications? Could they get into work in any areas they are qualified in?

One thing for sure, they’ll never be asked to either attend or address any of their old school functions.

Kauto · 17-04-2018 01:13PM

JupiterKid wrote: »

It’s clear that Jackson and Olding’s rugby careers are now over. Clubs in Britain or France won’t take them and they’d even be lucky to play for any club in SA or Oz and New Zealand.

Best for them to go away for a while, do a bit of soul searching, let the story fade out and try for another career. Do they have third level qualifications? Could they get into work in any areas they are qualified in?

One thing for sure, they’ll never be asked to either attend or address any of their old school functions.

Complete nonsense. They will be both picked up by a club in either England or France.

bottlebrush · 17-04-2018 01:18PM

JupiterKid wrote: »

It’s clear that Jackson and Olding’s rugby careers are now over. Clubs in Britain or France won’t take them and they’d even be lucky to play for any club in SA or Oz and New Zealand.

Best for them to go away for a while, do a bit of soul searching, let the story fade out and try for another career. Do they have third level qualifications? Could they get into work in any areas they are qualified in?

One thing for sure, they’ll never be asked to either attend or address any of their

old school functions.

But will other employers, outside the rugby sphere, be now fearful of giving them a job given the backlash.

I think the punishment so far has outweighed their actions and think it should stop.

I hope they get their lives back on track

seachto7 · 17-04-2018 01:27PM

bottlebrush wrote: »

But will other employers, outside the rugby sphere, be now fearful of giving them a job given the backlash.

I think the punishment so far has outweighed their actions and think it should stop.

I hope they get their lives back on track

They could move to a country where people don’t give a flying f**k about rugby. There are lots of them.
They’d do well to get off this small island anyway...
They made their beds...

facehugger99 · 17-04-2018 01:28PM

JupiterKid wrote: »

It’s clear that Jackson and Olding’s rugby careers are now over. Clubs in Britain or France won’t take them and they’d even be lucky to play for any club in SA or Oz and New Zealand.

Best for them to go away for a while, do a bit of soul searching, let the story fade out and try for another career. Do they have third level qualifications? Could they get into work in any areas they are qualified in?

One thing for sure, they’ll never be asked to either attend or address any of their old school functions.

Jackson would surely pick up something - granted it's likely to be far less than he was on with Ulster.

However, the bigger concern would be the lack of post-playing opportunities they will have. A lot of the retired pros make a decent wedge on the after-dinner and corporate speaking functions. Some are brand ambassadors for various companies. Some go into coaching or punditry.

None of the above will be viable for Jackson or Olding. On that basis there's not much point in them scratching out a playing career at some lower level French club for the next 6-7 years.

I'd agree with you, they need to move outside of rugby.

blanch152 · 17-04-2018 01:34PM

JupiterKid wrote: »

It’s clear that Jackson and Olding’s rugby careers are now over. Clubs in Britain or France won’t take them and they’d even be lucky to play for any club in SA or Oz and New Zealand.

Best for them to go away for a while, do a bit of soul searching, let the story fade out and try for another career. Do they have third level qualifications? Could they get into work in any areas they are qualified in?

One thing for sure, they’ll never be asked to either attend or address any of their old school functions.

There are plenty of convicted rugby players playing in other countries, why would those found not guilty not get a job?

Edit:

http://www.rugbyworld.com/news

Had a look at this to see what the rugby world outside Ireland was saying about Jackson, couldn't find anything.

Israel Folau gets a mention, no sign of him not being re-signed.

http://www.rugbyworld.com/news/israel-folau-sparks-fury-with-anti-gay-comments-91104

Three weeks for calling someone a f****t, four if you add the word f*****g before it.

http://www.rugbyworld.com/in-the-mag/rugby-rant/rugby-rant-game-must-clamp-homophobic-abuse-91217

yourdeadwright · 17-04-2018 01:56PM

So can we expect all the #ibelieveher crowd to be out marching today after Judge Nolan gave that 60 year old ex state official a suspend sentence after being found with over 60 thousand child images and videos,
or is that not quite in the public eye enough for the social media attention seekers ? or maybe because it happened in an Irish court room and not a British one ?

facehugger99 · 17-04-2018 01:59PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

So can we expect all the #ibelieveher crowd to be out marching today after Judge Nolan gave that 60 year old ex state official a suspend sentence after being found with over 60 thousand child images and videos,

Certainly wouldn't want him representing Ireland in rugby.

bottlebrush · 17-04-2018 02:14PM

And yes that's far worse than him being potentially around young children. . .

hatrickpatrick · 17-04-2018 02:14PM

Lucy8080 wrote: »

If this case happened south of the border , those lads would still be in their jobs.

Their right to anonymity until found guilty would have seen to this.

I didn't know this was a thing in Ireland until several days ago when my dad (former law student) pointed it out to me. Can't believe that one passed me by all these years, absolutely fantastic system and extremely progressive. Nice to see Ireland leading the way on something like this as opposed to falling in behind a bulk of continental European countries who thought of it first!

hatrickpatrick · 17-04-2018 02:16PM

Mrsmum wrote: »

Poll on the Clare Byrne Show tonight: 69% agreed with IRFU decision, 19% disagreed.

goz83 wrote: »

Well if the Claire Byrne show, the epicentre of balanced, unbiased debate says so :rolleyes:

This is the same Clare Byrne show which had an entire segment last year dedicated to the "I've just seen Imelda Quirke's arse coming down the ladder!" scene from The Commitments, and discussing how unacceptable that kind of talk is among lads and whether it's still ok to laugh at it because "it's from an older time". :rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick · 17-04-2018 02:19PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It absolutely has not.

I wasn't aware that the trial was still ongoing, nor was I aware that the jury had been instructed to reach a verdict on the balance of probabilities as opposed to the standard measure of beyond reasonable doubt :rolleyes:

yourdeadwright · 17-04-2018 02:20PM

Don't worry lads it wont get the stun hun down the road any attention to tweet about it, or it won't get the local Instagram blogger extra followers., so there be no mention of it as its just not as important as Rugby lads who where strangely enough found not guilty ,
it defo wasn't about attention all these thousand of Irish women where standing up for Women all over this Isand against 4lads who where not guilty
But sure never mind a Peado who pleaded guilty praying on children !!!!!!!!!!!!!

hatrickpatrick · 17-04-2018 02:22PM

Captain Obvious wrote: »

As a legal concept I do. It's necessary to prevent the government simply locking up citizens without reason or due process. But that doesn't mean people, or companies, can't make up their own minds about someone or something based on what they know.

That's your opinion. My opinion is that companies etc should absolutely be bound by the same criteria when it comes to preventing miscarriages of justice. Being fired for an unproven allegation is just as much a miscarriage of justice as being jailed for one.

goz83 · 17-04-2018 02:31PM

Mrsmum wrote: »

And yet Craig Gilroy is still in his job. So not just the words more the behaviour all round is why they are gone,

Funny you mention that. I brought it up several times that CG kept his job when other posters were saying the condemnation had nothing to do with the trial and everything to do with the text messages, of which PJ sent 1 (there was plenty of spit). Off with his head!

joe40 wrote: »

There is a really false equivalence been put forward here between a poster using the word coloured, without realising it caused offence, and the contents of the whatsapp messages in question.
Did anyone actually read the article it was the well respected actor benedict Cumberbatch that used the term, and apologised when he realised it was offensive. No further action required it was totally unintentional and that was accepted
Compare that to the attitude of some people here that argue that the word "slut" should not be offensive, even if others find it extremely offensive.

The only difference I really see is that the "slut" texts were made public. Mrsmum calling children "coloured" has not been made public, as she remains anonymous. She also hasn't made any sort of apology and hasn't really acknowledged her slur either, only to say that is if was wrong "fair enough".

I doubt her son has friends of darker complexion, as she would be aware that the word she used is racist.

Mrsmum: "Little Johnny, come in for tea and tell your coloured friends you'll be out later".

My son actually does have friends of different race. In fact, I don't think he has a single Irish friend. His friends are Eastern European, African and Asian. I would never refer to his friends in a derogatory/racist way. I tend to use their names, rather than their heritage to refer to them. If I don't know, or can't pronounce their names, I say "the tall blonde boy" or "the chatty one with the skate-board".

joe40 · 17-04-2018 02:34PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Mrsmum wrote: »

Poll on the Clare Byrne Show tonight: 69% agreed with IRFU decision, 19% disagreed.

goz83 wrote: »

Well if the Claire Byrne show, the epicentre of balanced, unbiased debate says so :rolleyes:

This is the same Clare Byrne show which had an entire segment last year dedicated to the "I've just seen Imelda Quirke's arse coming down the ladder!" scene from The Commitments, and discussing how unacceptable that kind of talk is among lads and whether it's still ok to laugh at it because "it's from an older time". :rolleyes:

The poll on the Clare Byrne show is carried out by an independent polling company, not connected to the show.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Captain Obvious wrote: »

It absolutely has not.

I wasn't aware that the trial was still ongoing, nor was I aware that the jury had been instructed to reach a verdict on the balance of probabilities as opposed to the standard measure of beyond reasonable doubt :rolleyes:

The Jury are not asked to prove innocence beyond reasonable doubt, they are already presumed to be innocent. The jury is asked to decide on guilt beyond reasonable doubt. I'm not saying the boys are guilty, the verdict re-established the presumption of innocence.
They absolutely work on probabilities, if there is only a small chance of innocence in the juries mind they must find the defendant innocent.

Captain Obvious · 17-04-2018 02:34PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I wasn't aware that the trial was still ongoing, nor was I aware that the jury had been instructed to reach a verdict on the balance of probabilities as opposed to the standard measure of beyond reasonable doubt :rolleyes:

It appears you aren't aware how the legal system works either.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's your opinion. My opinion is that companies etc should absolutely be bound by the same criteria when it comes to preventing miscarriages of justice. Being fired for an unproven allegation is just as much a miscarriage of justice as being jailed for one.

It's not my opinion, it's fact. Criminal and civil cases require different levels of proof. And opinion requires none. You can live your life believing only things that have been proven beyond reasonable doubt in a criminal trial but the rest of the world doesn't behave like that.

Yeah_Right · 17-04-2018 02:47PM

JupiterKid wrote: »

It’s clear that Jackson and Olding’s rugby careers are now over. Clubs in Britain or France won’t take them and they’d even be lucky to play for any club in SA or Oz and New Zealand.

You've clearly never heard of Sam Tuitupo, Roger Randle, Eric Rush, George Moala, Russell Packer or Julian Savea. One of those guys actually played rugby for an Irish province despite having a DV conviction. No protests.

Jackson and Olding will find a club.

NAGDEFI · 17-04-2018 05:50PM

yourdeadwright wrote: »

Don't worry lads it wont get the stun hun down the road any attention to tweet about it, or it won't get the local Instagram blogger extra followers., so there be no mention of it as its just not as important as Rugby lads who where strangely enough found not guilty ,
it defo wasn't about attention all these thousand of Irish women where standing up for Women all over this Isand against 4lads who where not guilty
But sure never mind a Peado who pleaded guilty praying on children !!!!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe retype that post i haven't a clue what you're saying. For a start praying is 'preying'.

'all these thousand of Irish women where standing up for Women all over this Isand'. WTF??

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Comments