Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Faugheen · 12-06-2019 11:16PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What is your attitude to people in your own circle who make mistakes?

How's your whataboutery going there Francie?

In my opinion, his stupidity deservedly cost him his job. A mistake maybe, but he's a person in the public eye who had influence over a number of people and he posted a picture of a monkey to represent the son of a mixed-race woman and a white man. That is mind-boggling how it didn't click in his head how that was going to look.

You disagree that he should have lost his job. That's fine. Get over it.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 11:19PM

Faugheen wrote: »

How's your whataboutery going there Francie?

In my opinion, his stupidity deservedly cost him his job. A mistake maybe, but he's a person in the public eye who had influence over a number of people and he posted a picture of a monkey to represent the son of a mixed-race woman and a white father. That is mind-boggling how it didn't click in his head how that was going to look.

You disagree that he should have lost his job. That's fine. Get over it.

I wasn't asking you about Baker, I asked you how you treat people in your own circle who make mistakes?

Faugheen · 12-06-2019 11:24PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I wasn't asking you about Baker, I asked you how you treat people in your own circle who make mistakes?

Why?

Why do you actually care about what I think so much? We have disagreements. Get over it.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 11:31PM

Faugheen wrote: »

Why?

Why do you actually care about what I think so much? We have disagreements. Get over it.

I just wonder about the mind of somebody so self righteously absolute that can watch a career go down in flames because he didn't behave the way you would want, when there are millions out there in nightclubs behaving exactly the same way...men and women.

Faugheen · 12-06-2019 11:37PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I just wonder about the mind of somebody so self righteously absolute that can watch a career go down in flames because he didn't behave the way you would want, when there are millions out there in nightclubs behaving exactly the same way...men and women.

I have an opinion, you have a different opinion.

Get over it. Seriously, three times I've asked you to get over it and you keep going.

Sad bastard.

FrancieBrady · 12-06-2019 11:44PM

Faugheen wrote: »

I have an opinion, you have a different opinion.

Get over it. Seriously, three times I've asked you to get over it and you keep going.

Sad bastard.

Dangerous
Ignorant
now Sad.

Night F. Take her handy there fella.

wiggle16 · 12-06-2019 11:49PM

Mrsmum wrote: »

Perhaps the jury simply didn't know who to believe, so many stories, so many versions, everyone drunk, contradicting each other left, right and centre.

Therefore they had to find ' Not Guilty'.

Is that not a possibility ?

This is really what it boils down to.

I remember thinking at the time while reading about the trial that it was a foregone conclusion that they would be acquitted, because it was just her word against theirs. No one was telling the same story, not the lady, not Jackson and Olding, not the witnesses.

I've flitted back and forth about whether I think they did it or not. I don't know still. But even when I was swinging towards "guilty", if I were a juror I would not have found them guilty. It's her word against theirs, and right or wrong that's not enough to put someone in prison over.

Jackman25 · 13-06-2019 07:14AM

wiggle16 wrote: »

This is really what it boils down to.

I remember thinking at the time while reading about the trial that it was a foregone conclusion that they would be acquitted, because it was just her word against theirs. No one was telling the same story, not the lady, not Jackson and Olding, not the witnesses.

I've flitted back and forth about whether I think they did it or not. I don't know still. But even when I was swinging towards "guilty", if I were a juror I would not have found them guilty. It's her word against theirs, and right or wrong that's not enough to put someone in prison over.

Do you feel it is fair to keep hounding an innocent man out of employment and for how long should it continue? Should he never again be allowed work?

Hardcharger · 13-06-2019 07:21AM

The accused were found innocent on all charges by a jury that sat for months on end. There could never have been a more resounding verdict. Not guilty. End of story. A hysterical mob of unattractive - mostly fat or skinny and flat chested - black clad cat owning purple haired man hating feminist lesbian fanatics latched on to this case.
50 years ago these black wearing witches would have been nuns who enforced a totalitarian ideology
Now Catholicism is gone these freaks have found a new home in diversity inclusion and equity

anewme · 13-06-2019 07:37AM

Hardcharger wrote: »

The accused were found innocent on all charges by a jury that sat for months on end. There could never have been a more resounding verdict. Not guilty. End of story. A hysterical mob of unattractive - mostly fat or skinny and flat chested - black clad cat owning purple haired man hating feminist lesbian fanatics latched on to this case.
50 years ago these black wearing witches would have been nuns who enforced a totalitarian ideology
Now Catholicism is gone these freaks have found a new home in diversity inclusion and equity

If this is the type of attitude defending Paddy, is it any wonder the sponsors are heading for the hills?

:eek:

SirGerryAdams · 13-06-2019 07:40AM

Mrsmum wrote: »

People arguing that PJ did nothing wrong are really doing him no favours. That he is connected with the attitude that that's what lads do is part of the reason the sponsors have major difficulty touching him. They know that while he has some such supporters, many, many other people were genuinely shocked and horrified at what they heard so he is a hugely divisive figure. PJ needs to shake off that reputation because why would the sponsors soil their brand with someone who is the poster boy for what everyone but his supporters regard as sh***y behaviour. The best and only narrative for him in the reality of his situation now is that he deeply regrets his disrespectful behaviour back then and that he is now a different and better person. That he understands that the toxic attitude he displayed towards his sexual partner and other women was wrong and it is not an attitude he has any respect for any longer. He needs his supporters to get on board with that message because that is the only route of dignity for his future. Anyone saying it was all grand when Paddy himself can't say that are effectively holding him to his old, now unwanted reputation and actually not serving his real best interests at all. Fighting a ongoing war for him that he has already lost will make sponsors run in the opposite direction from him.

Fcuk the sponsors! They love Gareth Williams even though he was banging men behind his wife's back bareback! Far far worse than anything PJ was accused of!

facehugger99 · 13-06-2019 07:45AM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Fcuk the sponsors! They love Gareth Williams even though he was banging men behind his wife's back bareback! Far far worse than anything PJ was accused of!

You think cheating on your wife is worse than rape?

That's fcuked up.

Roger Hassenforder · 13-06-2019 07:49AM

facehugger99 wrote: »

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Fcuk the sponsors! They love Gareth Williams even though he was banging men behind his wife's back bareback! Far far worse than anything PJ was accused of!

You think cheating on your wife is worse than rape?

That's fcuked up.

What rape?

facehugger99 · 13-06-2019 07:53AM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

What rape?

Have a read of the thread title if you're unaware of the rape trial that's being discussed here.

Are you easily confused??

Mrsmum · 13-06-2019 08:04AM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Fcuk the sponsors!

No can do. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

Roger Hassenforder · 13-06-2019 08:05AM

facehugger99 wrote: »

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

What rape?

Have a read of the thread title if you're unaware of the rape trial that's being discussed here.

Are you easily confused??

Again, in the context of the thread title.
What rape?

Clue: according to a jury, who were privy to a lot more than you or I, there was no rape.

Im confused all right, whether you're simply blissfully ignorant, uninformed, or saying the lads were actually guilty?

SirGerryAdams · 13-06-2019 08:12AM

facehugger99 wrote: »

You think cheating on your wife is worse than rape?

That's fcuked up.

What rape?

There's 0 proof he raped anyone. Unless...Diageo are going around accusing him of being a rapist now? :eek:

I'd love to know why he doesn't match their values tbh. Is it because they think he's a rapist (which would be disgusting to accuse someone of that considering they were found not guilty) or that he's just not nice towards women (in which case Gareth Thomas banging men rawdog behind his wife's back is infinitely worse).

Hedgelayer · 13-06-2019 08:14AM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

What rape?

There's 0 proof he raped anyone. Unless...Diageo are going around accusing him of being a rapist now? :eek:

I'd love to know why he doesn't match their values tbh. Is it because they think he's a rapist (which would be disgusting to accuse someone of that considering they were found not guilty) or that he's just not nice towards women (in which case Gareth Thomas banging men rawdog behind his wife's back is infinitely worse).

There's no smoke without fire as they say.....
That man's life is in tatters.
I wouldn't let him near a lawnmower.....

salmocab · 13-06-2019 08:20AM

Hedgelayer wrote: »

There's no smoke without fire as they say.....
That man's life is in tatters.
I wouldn't let him near a lawnmower.....

There no smoke without fire is the greatest nonsense, people it trot it out like it’s a great point when really it’s a way of saying well I believe it regardless of facts.

DavidLyons_ · 13-06-2019 08:20AM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Im confused all right, whether you're simply blissfully ignorant, uninformed, or saying the lads were actually guilty?

I’d love to hear the answer to this (I won’t hold my breath).

Jackson was acquitted by a jury of his peers (in another jurisdiction, just for measure) and can only really be held accountable for one fairly innocuous, if mildly unchivalrous, WhatsApp message which read along the lines of “there was a lot of spitting going on”.

The morons want him lynched and his life ruined for that.

Hedgelayer · 13-06-2019 08:31AM

salmocab wrote: »

There no smoke without fire is the greatest nonsense, people it trot it out like it’s a great point when really it’s a way of saying well I believe it regardless of facts.

Not necessarily it depends on the difference between belief and facts, but from the trial and what went on I empathize more with the woman than the lockeroom Jocks....

facehugger99 · 13-06-2019 08:34AM

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Again, in the context of the thread title.
What rape?

Clue: according to a jury, who were privy to a lot more than you or I, there was no rape.

Im confused all right, whether you're simply blissfully ignorant, uninformed, or saying the lads were actually guilty?

You seem to be - not to mention lacking a bit of basic reading comprehension.

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Fcuk the sponsors! They love Gareth Williams even though he was banging men behind his wife's back bareback! Far far worse than anything PJ was accused of!

Honestly, I wouldn't have the time or patience to handhold you through a discussion. If you're unable to keep up, I suggest you bow out.

SirGerryAdams · 13-06-2019 08:41AM

Well I'm personally delighted Jackson has been cleaning up in France and now the UK.

Also it appears Sean O'Brien pissing on someone in a pub matches their values. :pac:

facehugger99 · 13-06-2019 08:55AM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Well I'm personally delighted Jackson has been cleaning up in France and now the UK.

Doubt he's cleaning up. He's very much damaged goods and the clubs know it. His lucrative contract with the IRFU was terminated and he's reduced to scraping around the lower reaches of France/UK to try to cobble a career together for a few more short years. The current situatiuon with LI only confirms what most of us already realised - he's not welcome back into polite society.

After his playing career ends he will find that the usual post-playing avenues of punditry, speaking engagements and coaching are closed to him.

His legal bills were huge, combined with a ill-advised failed attempt to sue the BBC.

Basically he's fcuked financially.

But TBH I can't say I'll be shedding any tears for him. He brought it all on himself. Sometimes karma provides the justice the legal system can't.

salmocab · 13-06-2019 08:56AM

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Not necessarily it depends on the difference between belief and facts, but from the trial and what went on I empathize more with the woman than the lockeroom Jocks....

No saying no smoke without fire suggests that just because someone said something happened it did, which is the greatest load of nonsense.
There can indeed be smoke without fire.

seamus · 13-06-2019 09:01AM

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Jackson was acquitted by a jury of his peers (in another jurisdiction, just for measure) and can only really legally be held accountable for one fairly innocuous, if mildly unchivalrous, WhatsApp message which read along the lines of “there was a lot of spitting going on”.

FYP. Because that's the difference.

Sponsors, teams and the general public are not bound by some moral code to ignore the content of the trial when a not guilty verdict is delivered. They are legally obliged to consider him innocent of the specific crime of rape, but they are not legally obliged to ignore the evidence given.

It's not just a single WhatsApp, it's the behaviour before, during and after the incident.

Hedgelayer · 13-06-2019 09:06AM

salmocab wrote: »

No saying no smoke without fire suggests that just because someone said something happened it did, which is the greatest load of nonsense.
There can indeed be smoke without fire.

Well there can, mix up alcohol and a mix of different personalities then anything could happen....

Unfortunately a lot of people's lives were ruined that night, if they all behaved like responsible moral adults we wouldn't be talking about smoke and fire....

I'm sure you wouldn't have behaved like those lads, in the past those circumstances would be brushed under the carpet and nothing would have come of it.

But popularity and being in the public light gives people a lot less power these days than times in the past...

Now when is the lack of balance going to meet in the middle, that's the status quo.

Paradoxically it was an absolute sh17 storm.

Mrsmum · 13-06-2019 09:08AM

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Well I'm personally delighted Jackson has been cleaning up in France and now the UK.

Also it appears Sean O'Brien pissing on someone in a pub matches their values. :pac:

I somehow don't think it would be helpful to Sean O'Brien if there were WhatsApp messages showing that he was laughing and joking afterwards with his pals under a group heading called 'top p***ers about how much craic it was to p**s on someone. It would change his persona from a drunken idiot on one night into an arrogant, entitled, pr**k who generally goes around disrespecting people.

Jackman25 · 13-06-2019 09:14AM

Hedgelayer wrote: »

Not necessarily it depends on the difference between belief and facts, but from the trial and what went on I empathize more with the woman than the lockeroom Jocks....

A lot of vitriol towards them is probably from Internet nerds delighted to see some "lockeroom Jocks" get their comeuppance.

mfceiling · 13-06-2019 09:16AM

Mrsmum wrote: »

PJ needs to shake off that reputation because why would the sponsors soil their brand with someone who is the poster boy for what everyone but his supporters regard as sh***y behaviour.

He can't because some people can't get over the fact that he wasn't charged with rape. In their mind he is guilty and nothing he can do or say will change their minds.

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Comments