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…969799101102…108

Comments

  • Options
    #2942
    facehugger99
    Registered Users Posts: 7,252 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Why does the notion that he may be on a lucrative contract annoy you so much?

    Really odd thing for any normal person to get hung up on. Unless you are jealous and spiteful?

    Why do you think it annoys me?

    It just amuses me to expose the hypocrisy of a poster, fond of calling for proof from others, trying to spin their ignorant opinion as fact.


  • Options
    #2943
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,728 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Yet managed to find a place in a premiership squad? His bolt is clearly not shot yet by any means.

    That is of course of how much he plays.

    Could he be getting more money than last year in France and with Ulster? Possibly so a possible step up.

    Has he the possibility to play for Ireland anytime soon? No so a step down
    Has he the possibility of been at the World Cup? No so a step down
    Has he last year played in the European Cup or in fact this year? No so a step down.

    To keep trying to say he has not suffered for his image is madness a image he could have controlled by not been a moron on that night and then writing in the group message.

    Yes he was not convicted and I accept that anx would defend him if anyone said otherwise but unlike Olding his attitude and how he spoke did not show any way he thought his behaviour and actions were bad. Only when he was on his way out did he try to act like a guy in remorace for his words and action while not rape was a disgrace


  • Options
    #2944
    the.red.baron
    Registered Users Posts: 1,632 ✭✭✭the.red.baron


    facehugger99 wrote: »
    Why do you think it annoys me?

    It just amuses me to expose the hypocrisy of a poster, fond of calling for proof from others, trying to spin their ignorant opinion as fact.


    How long have you two been going on at this


    the same point over and over


    Days of effort wasted, i presume you don't have work to be doing


  • Options
    #2945
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,253 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    facehugger99 wrote: »
    Why do you think it annoys me?

    It just amuses me to expose the hypocrisy of a poster, fond of calling for proof from others, trying to spin their ignorant opinion as fact.

    What hypocrisy?

    I referred to his contract as lucrative. And by my terms it is, unless he is being treated worse than the average player.

    But you jumped on that word, as if it offended you. That is extremely odd.


  • Options
    #2946
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,219 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    So, as far as Diageo are concerned, Sean O’Brien is the right type of scumbag?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2947
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,253 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    martingriff wrote: »
    That is of course of how much he plays.

    Could he be getting more money than last year in France and with Ulster? Possibly so a possible step up.

    Has he the possibility to play for Ireland anytime soon? No so a step down
    Has he the possibility of been at the World Cup? No so a step down
    Has he last year played in the European Cup or in fact this year? No so a step down.

    To keep trying to say he has not suffered for his image is madness a image he could have controlled by not been a moron on that night and then writing in the group message.

    Yes he was not convicted and I accept that anx would defend him if anyone said otherwise but unlike Olding his attitude and how he spoke did not show any way he thought his behaviour and actions were bad. Only when he was on his way out did he try to act like a guy in remorace for his words and action while not rape was a disgrace

    Jesus christ...who said he hasn't suffered?

    He doesn't control his public image is what I said. If people delude themselves that sports people are some paragons of virtue and are on some exalted level us ordinary mortals aren't...go right ahead, imo that is juvenile and la la land.
    The twitter mob have decided what Jackson is and nothing Jackson does is going to change that.

    Unless you can tell us what makes this go away for him?


  • Options
    #2948
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,728 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Jesus christ...who said he hasn't suffered?

    He doesn't control his public image is what I said. If people delude themselves that sports people are some paragons of virtue and are on some exalted level us ordinary mortals aren't...go right ahead, imo that is juvenile and la la land.
    The twitter mob have decided what Jackson is and nothing Jackson does is going to change that.

    Unless you can tell us what makes this go away for him?

    But that the things this will not but he should have at least tried like Oldind at the end of the trial while the first statement given by his lawyer with him in the back was not to act somewhat contrite it was a angry it's over leave me alone attack. Olding came out gave his own statement realised how everything made him look and tries at least to look for redemption for what was said and how they acted.

    You seem to think that everyone acts talks and writes like Jackson does all the time. He put that image out as acting like that no one made him. So yes he could control that public image.

    As for who says he hasn't suffered you have by saying lucrative salary (without evidence) and he has had a step up


  • Options
    #2949
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,253 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    martingriff wrote: »
    But that the things this will not but he should have at least tried like Oldind at the end of the trial while the first statement given by his lawyer with him in the back was not to act somewhat contrite it was a angry it's over leave me alone attack. Olding came out gave his own statement realised how everything made him look and tries at least to look for redemption for what was said and how they acted.

    You seem to think that everyone acts talks and writes like Jackson does all the time. He put that image out as acting like that no one made him. So yes he could control that public image.

    As for who says he hasn't suffered you have by saying lucrative salary (without evidence) and he has had a step up

    And you have no idea whether or not Olding was 'constructing a public image' or not either.

    You just want lip service to the notion to assuage god knows what.

    Olding may or may not have been reacting honestly, I, and you have no way of knowing, the only proof of that will be in how he leads the rest of his life. Jackson may or may not have been reacting honestly either but there was no doubting his anger.

    I can empathise with his (Jackson's) anger and I can see why he spoke further a week later too.


  • Options
    #2950
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,728 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    And you have no idea whether or not Olding was 'constructing a public image' or not either.

    You just want lip service to the notion to assuage god knows what.

    Olding may or may not have been reacting honestly, I, and you have no way of knowing, the only proof of that will be in how he leads the rest of his life. Jackson may or may not have been reacting honestly either but there was no doubting his anger.

    I can empathise with his (Jackson's) anger and I can see why he spoke further a week later too.

    I have no doubt Olding was trying to rebuild and for people to look on him kinder and I am sure he had anger like Jackson. The difference is Oldind did not let the anger take hold and who knows understood how she may have felt. He went 1 way for his image jackson went another.


  • Options
    #2951
    Muahahaha
    Registered Users Posts: 19,617 ✭✭✭✭Muahahaha


    martingriff wrote: »
    Yes he was not convicted and I accept that anx would defend him if anyone said otherwise but unlike Olding his attitude and how he spoke did not show any way he thought his behaviour and actions were bad. Only when he was on his way out did he try to act like a guy in remorace for his words and action while not rape was a disgrace

    The aftermath of the trial was Jacksons real cock up. He might have found redemption had he come out and apologised like Olding did. But instead he went on the attack threatening to sue all and sundry, it was a PR disaster of his own making. He had control over his public image by not behaving as he did after the trial, the fact his public image is shattered now is solely on him.

    In years to come students of sports marketing and PR will be shown the Jackson case as an example of how not to operate in public, especially when sponsors are paying your wages.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2952
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    And you have no idea whether or not Olding was 'constructing a public image' or not either.

    Olding may or may not have been reacting honestly, I, and you have no way of knowing, the only proof of that will be in how he leads the rest of his life.

    So his statement was to save his image from falling further down the toilet whether he was telling the truth or not when he made the statement?

    Sounds like he’s controlling his image to me.

    You really are tying yourself up in knots here.


  • Options
    #2953
    SirGerryAdams
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 499 ✭✭SirGerryAdams


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    So, as far as Diageo are concerned, Sean O’Brien is the right type of scumbag?

    Diageo are some boyos aren't they?

    Sean O'Brien pisses on someone in a pub - GREAT!

    Gareth Thomas shags other men behind his wife's back bareback - GREAT!

    Munster hire a proven drugs cheat - GREAT!

    Mils Muliaina charged with sexual assault (eventually cleared like PJ) while playing for Connacht in the Pro 12 - GREAT!

    Man found not guilty in court - Not good...:rolleyes:


  • Options
    #2954
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,253 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Faugheen wrote: »
    So his statement was to save his image from falling further down the toilet whether he was telling the truth or not when he made the statement?

    Sounds like he’s controlling his image to me.

    You really are tying yourself up in knots here.

    And despite the fact that we don't know if Olding or Jackson have changed, it (his statement) made no difference to you or the rest of the mob. portray him, while Olding gets a pass.


    i.e. He is not in control of how he is perceived.

    Who is tying themselves in knots again? WHy don't you just admit you wanted him to prostrate himself and look for forgiveness(whether he meant it or not) and quit the charade here?


  • Options
    #2955
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,277 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    SirGerryAdams wrote: »
    Diageo are some boyos aren't they?

    Sean O'Brien pisses on someone in a pub - GREAT!

    Gareth Thomas shags other men behind his wife's back bareback - GREAT!

    Munster hire a proven drugs cheat - GREAT!

    Mils Muliaina charged with sexual assault (eventually cleared like PJ) while playing for Connacht in the Pro 12 - GREAT!

    Man found not guilty in court - Not good...:rolleyes:

    You seem obsessed with Gareth Thomas riding other men bareback. Obsessed.


  • Options
    #2956
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    And despite the fact that we don't know if Olding or Jackson have changed, it (his statement) made no difference to you or the rest of the mob. portray him, while Olding gets a pass.


    i.e. He is not in control of how he is perceived.

    Who is tying themselves in knots again? WHy don't you just admit you wanted him to prostrate himself and look for forgiveness(whether he meant it or not) and quit the charade here?

    What are you talking about?

    You say that Jackson gets all this guff ‘while Olding gets a pass’ and then claim it has nothing to do with their image?

    Jackson’s statement after the trial suggested he learned nothing about himself and just sounded angry, like none of it was his doing.

    Olding didn’t point fingers at anybody else but himself. Jackson’s statement was the best thing to ever happen to Olding’s image as well if you see the reaction afterwards.

    You’re chatting absolute sh*te and you just keep digging.


  • Options
    #2957
    SirGerryAdams
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 499 ✭✭SirGerryAdams


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    You seem obsessed with Gareth Thomas riding other men bareback. Obsessed.

    It's a fact.


  • Options
    #2958
    facehugger99
    Registered Users Posts: 7,252 ✭✭✭facehugger99


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    And despite the fact that we don't know if Olding or Jackson have changed, it (his statement) made no difference to you or the rest of the mob. portray him, while Olding gets a pass.

    Arf!

    I doubt most of the lads on here are waging a twitter war with Jackson's sponsors.

    You're like a child having an tantrum because their favourite Paddy Jackson action figure got taken away.

    It's been explained to you pretty clearly why he's in the sticky situation he's found himself - his behavior on the night in question, the next day and after the verdict were all appalling by any normal person's measure.

    It doesn't matter that you think he's been treated harshly, your opinions are morally bankrupt, in this matter and most others, and to a large extent, thankfully irrelevant to the way the world is run.


  • Options
    #2959
    Kenny B
    Registered Users Posts: 165 ✭✭Kenny B


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    The aftermath of the trial was Jacksons real cock up. He might have found redemption had he come out and apologised like Olding did. But instead he went on the attack threatening to sue all and sundry, it was a PR disaster of his own making. He had control over his public image by not behaving as he did after the trial, the fact his public image is shattered now is solely on him.

    In years to come students of sports marketing and PR will be shown the Jackson case as an example of how not to operate in public, especially when sponsors are paying your wages.

    Is the major difference between Olding and Jackson that Olding got a free Legal team but Jackson had to pay close to £500k for his and didn't get it back afterwards, (which is surprising)

    I'd want to get my money back if I was found Innocent, PR nonsense or not, Olding walked away with a full wallet so it was easy to be sombre then, Paddy got a kick in the julies.


  • Options
    #2960
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,277 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Kenny B wrote: »
    Is the major difference between Olding and Jackson that Olding got a free Legal team but Jackson had to pay close to £500k for his and didn't get it back afterwards, (which is surprising)

    I'd want to get my money back if I was found Innocent, PR nonsense or not, Olding walked away with a full wallet so it was easy to be sombre then, Paddy got a kick in the julies.

    Olding ended up paying half his costs. the rest was paid by legal aid as he had ran out of money.


  • Options
    #2961
    jm08
    Registered Users Posts: 11,300 ✭✭✭✭jm08


    SirGerryAdams wrote: »
    Diageo are some boyos aren't they?

    Sean O'Brien pisses on someone in a pub - GREAT!

    Gareth Thomas shags other men behind his wife's back bareback - GREAT!

    Munster hire a proven drugs cheat - GREAT!

    Mils Muliaina charged with sexual assault (eventually cleared like PJ) while playing for Connacht in the Pro 12 - GREAT!

    Man found not guilty in court - Not good...:rolleyes:


    I wouldn't say Sean O'Brien is in the clear. There is some sort of an IRFU investigation going on now, so it would be improper for Diageo to get involved at this stage, particularly as their is speculation that his rugby career could be over through injury.


    I think there is a big problem with how the British legal system works where those involved are named. The situation is much better down here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2962
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,728 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Muahahaha wrote: »
    The aftermath of the trial was Jacksons real cock up. He might have found redemption had he come out and apologised like Olding did. But instead he went on the attack threatening to sue all and sundry, it was a PR disaster of his own making. He had control over his public image by not behaving as he did after the trial, the fact his public image is shattered now is solely on him.

    In years to come students of sports marketing and PR will be shown the Jackson case as an example of how not to operate in public, especially when sponsors are paying your wages.

    Exactly was trying to be my point


  • Options
    #2963
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,728 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    And despite the fact that we don't know if Olding or Jackson have changed, it (his statement) made no difference to you or the rest of the mob. portray him, while Olding gets a pass.


    i.e. He is not in control of how he is perceived.

    Who is tying themselves in knots again? WHy don't you just admit you wanted him to prostrate himself and look for forgiveness(whether he meant it or not) and quit the charade here?

    I will try and make this simple. Olding makes a statement saying sorry (controlling his image) and looks like he means it and is left somewhat alone.

    Jackson comes out the exact opposite type of statement even went so far as threatening suing people (him adding to his image). Not been left alone.

    Jackson controlling how people see him


  • Options
    #2964
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,253 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    Faugheen wrote: »
    What are you talking about?

    You say that Jackson gets all this guff ‘while Olding gets a pass’ and then claim it has nothing to do with their image?

    Jackson’s statement after the trial suggested he learned nothing about himself and just sounded angry, like none of it was his doing.

    Olding didn’t point fingers at anybody else but himself. Jackson’s statement was the best thing to ever happen to Olding’s image as well if you see the reaction afterwards.

    You’re chatting absolute sh*te and you just keep digging.


    Jesus F'ing Christ. The absolute head in the sand, think what you want arrogance here!

    I said...read carefully now...he is NOT IN CONTROL of his public image. The public decide who and what he is.

    And right now, the braying, head in the sand, we are going to think what we want, twitteratti mob are deciding what that image is for the sponsors.

    That the sponsors are responding to a mob mentality only confirms how fickle corporations and companies are when it comes to making a buck. They don't care about the lives of ordinary people when it comes to it either like the twitter mob.

    It is no accident that you ran away from a question about how you treat people in your personal circle who make mistakes.


    *I wonder what label of depravity you will apply to me this time? :cool:


  • Options
    #2965
    DEFTLEFTHAND
    Registered Users Posts: 16,500 ✭✭✭✭DEFTLEFTHAND


    Few points about this case which interest me.

    All parties were heavily under the influence of alcohol.

    Jackson to the extent that he could not perform sexually.

    It was stated that Olding had 21 drinks before receiving oral sex from the complaint.

    Excuse me? 21 drinks? How could this man consent to oral sex in such a state? I think that he may have been the victim of a sexual assault. :pac:


  • Options
    #2966
    martingriff
    Registered Users Posts: 10,728 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Jesus F'ing Christ. The absolute head in the sand, think what you want arrogance here!

    I said...read carefully now...he is NOT IN CONTROL of his public image. The public decide who and what he is.

    And right now, the braying, head in the sand, we are going to think what we want, twitteratti mob are deciding what that image is for the sponsors.

    That the sponsors are responding to a mob mentality only confirms how fickle corporations and companies are when it comes to making a buck. They don't care about the lives of ordinary people when it comes to it either like the twitter mob.

    It is no accident that you ran away from a question about how you treat people in your personal circle who make mistakes.


    *I wonder what label of depravity you will apply to me this time? :cool:

    Jesus you are like a broken record please read careful Jackson IS IN CONTROL he does this by the way he acts and if he acted half as well as Olding by showing some remorse and not going to sue everyone. What is so hard to understand


  • Options
    #2967
    FrancieBrady
    Registered Users Posts: 67,253 ✭✭✭✭FrancieBrady


    martingriff wrote: »
    Jesus you are like a broken record please read careful Jackson IS IN CONTROL he does this by the way he acts and if he acted half as well as Olding by showing some remorse and not going to sue everyone. What is so hard to understand

    That was two years ago and he has since issued a statement and behaved beyond reproach.

    And his image is STILL the same...hence the mob braying about him getting a post he got on merit.

    WHEN does his penance finish for having so offended you paragons of virtue and blemish free lives.

    Perhaps listen to the 'broken record' you guys are playing for two years.


  • Options
    #2968
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,277 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »
    Did she speak on the stand?

    If so she could be prosecuted for perjury.

    As it stands she can be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice and wasting police time.

    really? because you have proof she lied, right?


  • Options
    #2969
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    FrancieBrady wrote: »
    Jesus F'ing Christ. The absolute head in the sand, think what you want arrogance here!

    I said...read carefully now...he is NOT IN CONTROL of his public image. The public decide who and what he is.

    And right now, the braying, head in the sand, we are going to think what we want, twitteratti mob are deciding what that image is for the sponsors.

    That the sponsors are responding to a mob mentality only confirms how fickle corporations and companies are when it comes to making a buck. They don't care about the lives of ordinary people when it comes to it either like the twitter mob.

    It is no accident that you ran away from a question about how you treat people in your personal circle who make mistakes.


    *I wonder what label of depravity you will apply to me this time? :cool:

    If Jackson stepped back and thought “hold on, behaving like this might not be good for my image if I get caught,” we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now.

    If Jackson decided “maybe I should do what Stuart did and just apologise and keep my head down,” he wouldn’t be under the spotlight anywhere near like this.

    It’s you who has your head in the sand. Proper finger in the ears “la la la la” stuff from you.


  • Options
    #2970
    Hannibal_Smith
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 6,985 Mod ✭✭✭✭Hannibal_Smith


    DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »
    As it stands she can be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice and wasting police time.

    On what basis?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #2971
    Faugheen
    Site Banned Posts: 12,341 ✭✭✭✭Faugheen


    DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »
    Did she speak on the stand?

    If so she could be prosecuted for perjury.

    As it stands she can be prosecuted for perverting the course of justice and wasting police time.

    All wrong again.

    Where’s the proof she lied under oath and wasted police time?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement