Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

tretorn · 12-04-2018 11:38am

NAGDEFI wrote: »

What's your vested interest here? Do you defend all non guilty rape cases or are you fixated with Paddy Jackson?

If you really want him playing that badly from a rugby point of view you should realise that there are bigger things than rugby.

Anyone who is judged by their peers in a court of law is not guilty on all counts that they have been charged with.

This is the position most sensible people take, what is the alternative, ugly shrieking on twitter, no thank you.

Do you stick your nose into all trials where the defendents walk out innocent or is it only men who are cleared of rape charges you have a problem with.

NAGDEFI · 12-04-2018 11:42am

tretorn wrote: »

And.

He is completely rehabilitated and is now travelling the world and feted everywhere.

There's no comparison and to entertain you is a waste of time. You don't seem to realise that practically every French prime minister and each UK head of state has/had a mistress. Politicians having affairs, have been tolerated for millenia.

You need to get your head around the fallout from a rape case and what individuals actually said... Bill Clinton never said one derogatory remark about women in the Lewinski case.

NAGDEFI · 12-04-2018 11:45am

tretorn wrote: »

Anyone who is judged by their peers in a court of law is not guilty on all counts that they have been charged with.

This is the position most sensible people take, what is the alternative, ugly shrieking on twitter, no thank you.

Do you stick your nose into all trials where the defendents walk out innocent or is it only men who are cleared of rape charges you have a problem with.

Again innocent by law but not in the eyes of many because of behaviour. Forget your twitterati bull. It's in the eyes of sponsors, the public.

The old phrase about wise men debating with fools comes to mind with you.

I have a problem with men who belittle and demean other human beings representing my country.

givyjoe · 12-04-2018 11:48am

facehugger99 wrote: »

Yeah, that won't be happening with Jackson. Make your peace with it and move on.

What won't be happening? His rehabilitation? If so rehabilitation from what? You seem to be taking a rather ugly pleasure from the potential fallout for PJ and the other lads.

NAGDEFI · 12-04-2018 11:52am

I'm going now because it only takes a few posts to say what you have to say.

No doubt there'll be 100 more posts about, twitter and mobs, innocent men etc.

From posters who ignore 2 key points.

1. It's ordinary irish men and women who don't want Jackson and Olding playing. Not feminazi, hashtag groups and all their other efforts to say it's some organised clique behind it.

2. You can be found innocent in a court of law but your language and behaviour may result in people not wanting you representing their country.

Tretorn etc. If you don't make your point after 2 months, stop boring.

tretorn · 12-04-2018 11:52am

Innocent of all charges brought, thats all that matters when it comes to employment rights.

The whatsapp messages that the men sent were in response to messages sent by other rugby players, if Jackson and Olding a re to be sacked for them then that means that every worker in the country should be sacked for smutty texts.

Only an incredible stupid person and a total prude would want this scenario.

Mrsmum · 12-04-2018 11:54am

givyjoe wrote: »

Seen as they weren't found guilty of anything, I can only assume you mean because of their foolish text messages? Do you judge yourself by the same standards?

We are past the point of wondering (as if there was ever any doubt) was their behaviour acceptable or not. I think you should read Pj's apology and keep reading it every day or hour until it gets into your head that their behaviour was not acceptable. Now next on the agenda is can the general public forgive because without the backing of Mr & Mrs Joe Public they are on a hiding to nothing. it's all about cleaning up their act now. They can't do much themselves as they are learning that at the end of the day your reputation is all any of us are left with and theirs are in the gutter which is where they lowered themselves into. Sport in general could imo give them a helping hand - codes of conduct, mission statements on respect, zero tolerance and stated immediate sacking for conduct unbecoming and a very serious and public criticism of all that was wrong about what they did etc. That might help heal the revulsion out there.

take everything · 12-04-2018 12:00pm

tretorn wrote: »

Because its one of the busiest threads on boards.

Can someone PM me the juicy whatsapps.

I need a good laugh before I go to the dentist.

Will I get into trouble though If I open them. I suppose its not my fault if a bold person sennds them but then omg, poor Jackson got into more trouble becasue Harrison sent him juicy stuff from the internet.

The woman in the juicy stuff may be happy to be in the threesome because she is paid for it, she is probably gorgeous and the harpies think they should tell other women not to capitalise on their good looks, the harpies are just jealous because no one would invite them to join a threesome.

The harpies shouldnt die wondering what a threesome would be like, if they go online they could probably find a website where male escorts would do a threesome if you pay them.

Seriously what is wrong with you.
The Twitter mob thinking they know better than the Justice system annoy the crap out of me as much as the next reasonable person.
But God you're as bad

tretorn · 12-04-2018 12:01pm

Im pretty critical of women who go out and drink too much and then invite themselves back into house and bedroom of a well known rugby sportsman.

I really hope the woman at the centre of this case takes care that this never happens again .

I hope other young women who are presently partaking in threesomes with famous sportspeople now pause for a second and think about their self respect.

I am not repulsed though about anyones right to do what they like but you cant go into the kitchen and then complain its too hot.

Thats not rape, its regret.

meeeeh · 12-04-2018 12:03pm

tretorn wrote: »

Anyone who is judged by their peers in a court of law is not guilty on all counts that they have been charged.

Nobody wants them to go to prison people are just asking that they are not forced to cheer them when go to a rugby match.

You are very much obsessed with wealth and wealthy rugby fans. Contact Ulster Rugby that you and your wealthy fans will cover any fall out from sponsors. Put your money where your mouth is.

take everything · 12-04-2018 12:05pm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Not to judge anyone, or to purport to dictate to people what they should and should not read (though I would tread very very carefully on material relating to a trial), but before asking to be PM'd these Whatsapps it's worth asking yourself -- why do you want to see them? Is there any public or private interest in being any further privy to the private lives of these people than we already are? The trial is over. Any relevant evidence has been assessed, weighed up and scrutinised in a court of law. There is no further value in reading anyone's Whatsapps.

The thing that made this trial an affront to the principles of a fair trial was the sensationalist and even borderline voyeuristic nature of the media reporting and public discourse around the trial. I would merely humbly implore people to resist the temptation to be drawn any further into peeking under the veil between peoples' private and public lives -- make a principled stand against this obsession and instead focus on the substantive areas of debate.

The red tops just love it. Saw a headline today in the shop, something like "read all the unseen details about rape case inside...!"
I just go away thinking we really are a pathetic species in many ways. Or maybe this sex obsession and narcissism is just cultural and will eventually fcuk off and pass.

tretorn · 12-04-2018 12:10pm

But You have a problem with Jackson and Olding because you saw their text messages.

For all you know every one else on the team sends similar messages, you havent access to their phones so you are happy to clap them.

Neither Jackson or Olding sent the message "were any sluts ****ed" another player did, are you going to clap for him.

I think if you have a major problem with the whatsapp conversations then you should probably not go to any rugby matches at all.

A soccer player tweeted a message in support of jackson and Olding after the not guilty verdict so you should probably not go to soccer matches either in case you clap him too.

Uncharted · 12-04-2018 12:19pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

I'm not ignoring any rulings, I just think they behaved like absolute scumbags and should deservedly suffer the consequences of this. Polls have demonstrated that most people agree with me.

Mob man hater mentality? Whatever you need to tell yourself buddy. Personally I'm more astounded that people don't see anything wrong with their behavior and think they should just pick up where they left off. That's fcuked up.

It's none of your business how they or anyone else behaves,so long as no laws are broken.

Just because you don't like their behaviour doesn't make it wrong.

Get over yourself .....BUDDY!

Grayson · 12-04-2018 12:23pm

givyjoe wrote: »

Seen as they weren't found guilty of anything, I can only assume you mean because of their foolish text messages? Do you judge yourself by the same standards?

To be fair you don't have to be found guilty of anything to find your career in ruins because of your own actions. For example Mel Gibson was never convicted of anti semitism.

People here know that I believe they raped the girl. However even if you accept every single word the players said as true they still acted badly. There's a load of people who wouldn't want to be associated with that. And if a sponsor supports them then it's seen as supporting and endorsing their actions.

And for what it matters, I know the question isn't directed at me but yes, I hold myself to those standards. I've never referred to women using the language they did. I've never been part of a conversation like their whatsapp messages. I've never treated a woman the way they did.

Calina · 12-04-2018 12:24pm

Uncharted wrote: »

facehugger99 wrote: »

I'm not ignoring any rulings, I just think they behaved like absolute scumbags and should deservedly suffer the consequences of this. Polls have demonstrated that most people agree with me.

Mob man hater mentality? Whatever you need to tell yourself buddy. Personally I'm more astounded that people don't see anything wrong with their behavior and think they should just pick up where they left off. That's fcuked up.

It's none of your business how they or anyone else behaves,so long as no laws are broken.

Just because you don't like their behaviour doesn't make it wrong.

Get over yourself .....BUDDY!

Their employers might have an interest though.

Uncharted · 12-04-2018 12:25pm

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair you don't have to be found guilty of anything to find your career in ruins because of your own actions. For example Mel Gibson was never convicted of anti semitism.

People here know that I believe they raped the girl. However even if you accept every single word the players said as true they still acted badly. There's a load of people who wouldn't want to be associated with that. And if a sponsor supports them then it's seen as supporting and endorsing their actions.

And for what it matters, I know the question isn't directed at me but yes, I hold myself to those standards. I've never referred to women using the language they did. I've never been part of a conversation like their whatsapp messages. I've never treated a woman the way they did.

Must get lonely up on Walton mountain there,John Boy....

Grayson · 12-04-2018 12:26pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She lectured everyone involved bar the young women.
She then ended by basicall saying - of course these men are not guilty but they must pay a price for their behaviour. The implication being 'the price' is their careers in Irish rugby.

You said she spent most of her time saying men are bad. Did she actually say that men are bad? Did she infer it in anyway.

Amnd do you have a link to the program or the transcripts?

ArthurDayne · 12-04-2018 12:26pm

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Can you not see that a majority of irish people think Olding and Jackson were involved in a tawdry, messy happening, where a 19 year old girl left Jackson's house in distress. Language was used that was very degrading to women. Many irish people don't want these men wearing their national jersey and representing their country???

How many times does this have to be spelt out for you week after week?

Whether you want to see them playing with Ireland or not, to be unable or unwilling to comprehend why decent irish people don't want them representing them is unbelievable.

Repeating a point over and over again doesn't mean that everyone has to just agree with you. You are pushing a fairly absolutist view on this -- which is really unhelpful.

The problem I, and many others, have with this view that Jackson & Co should just automatically be deprived their careers is that, if we were to establish a police state where all of our actions, remarks, jokes and errors of judgement were audited and published -- then I would venture that many seats in many offices and other workplaces, currently sat in by otherwise good law-abiding people, would be emptied.

You may believe in your heart and head that this girl was raped, or if not maybe you simply believe that it is wrongdoing enough for a girl to be left distraught and for guys to joke about it. On face value it is certainly cruel. On face value it is callous. On face value it is something which is neither admirable nor worthy of respect. But to say that behaving in such a way privately should automatically deprive someone of their livelihood seems excessive.

This is all the more so as the facts and circumstances of the case do appear to strongly suggest that this poor girl, though she was drunk and may not have ordinarily acted as she did, wound up taking part in a group sex act. This is not to say that her honest perception of not having consented is any way false, but there is a strong case for suggesting that this perception was supplemented more from regret and embarrassment rather than not having consented. I'm not saying this as some undeniable truth -- but the case for finding that there was a rape just was not compelling on the evidence.

The fact that their careers involve representing Ireland in sport, or that you have seemingly appointed yourself the mouthpiece of popular Irish opinion, are irrelevant because rights are rights. We have a rule of law in this country and the rule of law has been applied on this trial. The defendants are presumed innocent under the law and that presumption remains intact from the 'not guilty' verdict.

Grayson · 12-04-2018 12:26pm

Uncharted wrote: »

Must get lonely up on Walton mountain there,John Boy....

wht the holy fcuk are you talking about?

Lux23 · 12-04-2018 12:30pm

Uncharted wrote: »

It's none of your business how they or anyone else behaves,so long as no laws are broken.

How do you work that out?

Uncharted · 12-04-2018 12:30pm

Calina wrote: »

Their employers might have an interest though.

Exactly my point. Thank you. Their employers might....... but you have no business interfering though. Thanks for clearing that up.

Crea · 12-04-2018 12:33pm

Word is a number of French teams have expressed an interest in Jackson and Olding. I reckon Ulster will allow them to go and that will stop them for qualifying from playing for Ireland without them being explicitly banned.
I'd say they are being strongly advised to go to France. The Irish team doesn't really need them - they are very replaceable.

FrancieBrady · 12-04-2018 12:33pm

Grayson wrote: »

You said she spent most of her time saying men are bad. Did she actually say that men are bad? Did she infer it in anyway.

Amnd do you have a link to the program or the transcripts?

You got me Grayson. You got me. :rolleyes

FrancieBrady · 12-04-2018 12:36pm

Crea wrote: »

Word is a number of French teams have expressed an interest in Jackson and Olding. I reckon Ulster will allow them to go and that will stop them for qualifying from playing for Ireland without them being explicitly banned.
I'd say they are being strongly advised to go to France. The Irish team doesn't really need them - they are very replaceable.

'As long as it doesn't happen in Ireland'...What does that hypocrisy remind me of?

Grayson · 12-04-2018 12:36pm

Uncharted wrote: »

Exactly my point. Thank you. Their employers might....... but you have no business interfering though. Thanks for clearing that up.

When they're public figures it is of interest. In this case they may represent the country so it's of interest to the citizens. And especially so for rugby fans since that's the sport they will be representing the country in.

For example would you say that Mel Gibsons rant about jews is of interest?
Or how about OJ. He was found not guilty but his career was ruined.

If an Irish rugby player went on a rant about jews would you think it was fair for sponsors to withdraw their endorsements? Would it be fair for fans to say he shouldn't play? In that case no laws may have been broken (depending what what exactly was said in the rant) but it would still be considered behaviour that you don't want in someone representing their country.

Grayson · 12-04-2018 12:38pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You got me Grayson. You got me. :rolleyes

Roll your eyes all you want. You just admitted to lying.

Do you happen to have a link to the program? A lot of radio shows put links to recordings up so it may be that we could listen to the show ourselves.

LLMMLL · 12-04-2018 12:39pm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Not to judge anyone, or to purport to dictate to people what they should and should not read (though I would tread very very carefully on material relating to a trial), but before asking to be PM'd these Whatsapps it's worth asking yourself -- why do you want to see them? Is there any public or private interest in being any further privy to the private lives of these people than we already are? The trial is over. Any relevant evidence has been assessed, weighed up and scrutinised in a court of law. There is no further value in reading anyone's Whatsapps.

The thing that made this trial an affront to the principles of a fair trial was the sensationalist and even borderline voyeuristic nature of the media reporting and public discourse around the trial. I would merely humbly implore people to resist the temptation to be drawn any further into peeking under the veil between peoples' private and public lives -- make a principled stand against this obsession and instead focus on the substantive areas of debate.

We all know why they want to see them. They're pigs with their snouts in the trough and for some reason aren't even embarrassed by it.

Lux23 · 12-04-2018 12:40pm

Paddy Jackson and his lawyer completely f***ed up his own rehabilitation. If he had stood outside that courtroom a couple of weeks ago just like Olding did and apologised to the complainant and made no comment other than he wants to just get on with life, he would probably have been welcomed back to Ulster Rugby quietly, and most people wouldn't have cared. Instead, he stood there while his lawyer attacked the press, the general public, politicians and then threatened to sue people who said they still believed the complainant. Then nine days later he comes out with a hollow, empty apology because someone finally managed to get some sense into his tiny little head that just because he's an innocent man by law doesn't mean that his behaviour was considered of the standard expected of our athletes today. And what has really messed things up for him was that advert from the 'real' Ulster fans and then Willie 'Boys will be Boys' McBride's interview. This thing isn't going to blow over for him if he keeps pushing it and now he's looking to recoup his legal costs. Nah, it's over for him.

jimmycrackcorm · 12-04-2018 12:47pm

Grayson wrote:

People here know that I believe they raped the girl. However even if you accept every single word the players said as true they still acted badly. There's a load of people who wouldn't want to be associated with that. And if a sponsor supports them then it's seen as supporting and endorsing their actions.

A lot more people believe the case is more to do with feeling embarrassed by an independent witness walking in and seeing a threesome. I suspect that the remark about middle class girls alluded to that.

I doubt any of the ibelieveher sjws actually follow rugby anyway so it won't matter for the sponsors.

Lux23 · 12-04-2018 12:50pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

A lot more people believe the case is more to do with feeling embarrassed by an independent witness walking in and seeing a threesome. I suspect that the remark about middle class girls alluded to that.

I doubt any of the ibelieveher sjws actually follow rugby anyway so it won't matter for the sponsors.

And it is this attitude that will probably end Jackson's career. The inability to see that everyone has a right to an opinion regardless how many times they went to a match in the Aviva or Lansdowne Road.

12-04-2018 12:51pm

tretorn wrote: »

......... It will also piss off a lot of wealthy rugby fans ............

What does wealth have to do with it?

tretorn · 12-04-2018 12:54pm

Lux23 wrote: »

Paddy Jackson and his lawyer completely f***ed up his own rehabilitation. If he had stood outside that courtroom a couple of weeks ago just like Olding did and apologised to the complainant and made no comment other than he wants to just get on with life, he would probably have been welcomed back to Ulster Rugby quietly, and most people wouldn't have cared. Instead, he stood there while his lawyer attacked the press, the general public, politicians and then threatened to sue people who said they still believed the complainant. Then nine days later he comes out with a hollow, empty apology because someone finally managed to get some sense into his tiny little head that just because he's an innocent man by law doesn't mean that his behaviour was considered of the standard expected of our athletes today. And what has really messed things up for him was that advert from the 'real' Ulster fans and then Willie 'Boys will be Boys' McBride's interview. This thing isn't going to blow over for him if he keeps pushing it and now he's looking to recoup his legal costs. Nah, it's over for him.

He doesnt need to be rehabilitated though.

As far as he is concerned a stranger invited herself into his home and then went up to his bedroom with him. She stayed in the bedroom for forty five minutes.

There were three other women who went back to his house and they all testified they had a very pleasant evening there, none went to the bedroom with him though.

Jackson to his own mind was questioned by the police and he told his truth. The Police didnt believe him and they referred the case to the PPS but the police did tell the PPS the case didnt have the required evidence thats needed for it to go to trial. The PPS disregarded this advice and took the case to trial anyway.

After nine very long weeks the jury took less than a hour to acquit Jackson, there were four men charged and the jury deliberated for less than four hours in total so thats sixty minutes per man.

If Jackson hadnt threatened legal action people would insist on referring to him as a rapist. Most twitter people who were calling him a rapist took their tweets down when legal action against O Riordan was launched. The media biased though it is are very careful now too in the way they report on this case now.

kirving · 12-04-2018 12:54pm

Lux23 wrote: »

...and now he's looking to recoup his legal costs.

Most people in similar circumstances end up in massive debt after such a court case. Do you think that this is fair for someone who is not guilty?

Zulu · 12-04-2018 12:57pm

Grayson wrote: »

You just admitted to lying.

No they didnt

Do you happen to have a link to the program? A lot of radio shows

Why are you persistently badgering this point. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rte radio 1

Faugheen · 12-04-2018 1:00pm

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Grayson wrote:

People here know that I believe they raped the girl. However even if you accept every single word the players said as true they still acted badly. There's a load of people who wouldn't want to be associated with that. And if a sponsor supports them then it's seen as supporting and endorsing their actions.

A lot more people believe the case is more to do with feeling embarrassed by an independent witness walking in and seeing a threesome. I suspect that the remark about middle class girls alluded to that.

I doubt any of the ibelieveher sjws actually follow rugby anyway so it won't matter for the sponsors.

There isn't one bit of this post that is true.

There is way more people than the 'ibelieveher sjw's' who don't want them to play for Ireland again. If anyone thinks otherwise then you're deluded, and your head is stubbornly stuck in the sand.

Whether they follow rugby or not is irrelevant. Sponsors know this. It seems some people here don't.

BBDBB · 12-04-2018 1:03pm

and theres plenty who do want them to play for Ulster/Ireland again

and then theres plenty who really couldn't give a ****e

FrancieBrady · 12-04-2018 1:04pm

Faugheen wrote: »

There isn't one bit of this post that is true.

There is way more people than the 'ibelieveher sjw's' who don't want them to play for Ireland again. If anyone thinks otherwise then you're deluded, and your head is stubbornly stuck in the sand.

Whether they follow rugby or not is irrelevant. Sponsors know this. It seems some people here don't.

Can you prove what you claim? No you can't.

Have sponsors said one public word on this? No they haven't.

A short period of suspension may well be enough. You or I don't know.

FrancieBrady · 12-04-2018 1:07pm

BBDBB wrote: »

and theres plenty who do want them to play for Ulster/Ireland again

and then theres plenty who really couldn't give a ****e

Closest to the truth wins the goose!

Lux23 · 12-04-2018 1:09pm

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Most people in similar circumstances end up in massive debt after such a court case. Do you think that this is fair for someone who is not guilty?

Not particularly, but if he showed even a smidge of contriteness outside that courtroom he might manage to get a few quid back quietly. He chose a path which was attack and that backfired massively. He should have just went home and waited for the call.

Mrsmum · 12-04-2018 1:13pm

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Most people in similar circumstances end up in massive debt after such a court case. Do you think that this is fair for someone who is not guilty?

Of course it's fair. Whose bill is it but his.

Uncharted · 12-04-2018 1:15pm

Slightly off topic,apologies to the debating association.

FWIW I truly look forward to seeing Paddy Jackson lining out again in the white of Ulster and the green of Ireland.
I'm sure he rightfully feels gutted at the loss of a grand slam medal.
Getting his career back on track will be some small recompense.

Unfortunately for Stuart Olding,he might have a tougher road back to his position simply due to not being in Paddys league. Sport is a cruel mistress and is cruel to those who aren't truly stellar.

They will both be at clubs for the start of next season. No doubt. I just hope they don't have to emigrate.

I wish them both well and I hope they can move on.

FrancieBrady · 12-04-2018 1:16pm

Mrsmum wrote: »

Of course it's fair. Whose bill is it but his.

Twitterati found him guilty the court didnt.

Lux23 · 12-04-2018 1:17pm

tretorn wrote: »

He doesnt need to be rehabilitated though.

As far as he is concerned a stranger invited herself into his home and then went up to his bedroom with him. She stayed in the bedroom for forty five minutes.

There were three other women who went back to his house and they all testified they had a very pleasant evening there, none went to the bedroom with him though.

Jackson to his own mind was questioned by the police and he told his truth. The Police didnt believe him and they referred the case to the PPS but the police did tell the PPS the case didnt have the required evidence thats needed for it to go to trial. The PPS disregarded this advice and took the case to trial anyway.

After nine very long weeks the jury took less than a hour to acquit Jackson, there were four men charged and the jury deliberated for less than four hours in total so thats sixty minutes per man.

If Jackson hadnt threatened legal action people would insist on referring to him as a rapist. Most twitter people who were calling him a rapist took their tweets down when legal action against O Riordan was launched. The media biased though it is are very careful now too in the way they report on this case now.

You might think Jackson doesn't need to rehabilitate, he might think that but the money behind Ulster Rugby probably wouldn't touch him with a bargepole right now and that's who needs to convince to get back into the game. You're naive to expect that his legal threats did him any favours too. But then naivety seems to be the name of the game throughout this whole sorry saga.

BBDBB · 12-04-2018 1:18pm

Lux23 wrote: »

Not particularly, but if he showed even a smidge of contriteness outside that courtroom he might manage to get a few quid back quietly. He chose a path which was attack and that backfired massively. He should have just went home and waited for the call.

and if he had, given the mood and outrage at the time how do you think that go home and wait by the phone plan would have been received?

Why should an innocent man be silent after nearly two years of accusations hanging over their head and a 9 week trial with a media reporting every salacious detail as though he was guilty?

Why should people be permitted to go ahead and make vile accusations after a jury has just proclaimed you innocent,unchallenged?

Mrsmum · 12-04-2018 1:21pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Twitterati found him guilty the court didnt.

His bill for his lawyer is completely separate to what anyone thinks of him. However maybe a)his lawyer fell in love with him and won't charge him or b)all his fans might decide to throw him a few bob.

FrancieBrady · 12-04-2018 1:25pm

Lux23 wrote: »

You might think Jackson doesn't need to rehabilitate, he might think that but the money behind Ulster Rugby probably wouldn't touch him with a bargepole right now and that's who needs to convince to get back into the game. You're naive to expect that his legal threats did him any favours too. But then naivety seems to be the name of the game throughout this whole sorry saga.

He shut O;'Riordan up and had him grovelling. He also had the brave warriors on Twitter and FB scrambling like cowardly rats to delete their bile.
The man did us all a favour there.

FrancieBrady · 12-04-2018 1:26pm

Mrsmum wrote: »

His bill for his lawyer is completely separate to what anyone thinks of him. However maybe a)his lawyer fell in love with him and won't charge him or b)all his fans might decide to throw him a few bob.

No suprise you want him destitute as well. Womankind scorned and all that.

Mrsmum · 12-04-2018 1:31pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No suprise you want him destitute as well. Womankind scorned and all that.

More rubbish.

Faugheen · 12-04-2018 1:31pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

There isn't one bit of this post that is true.

There is way more people than the 'ibelieveher sjw's' who don't want them to play for Ireland again. If anyone thinks otherwise then you're deluded, and your head is stubbornly stuck in the sand.

Whether they follow rugby or not is irrelevant. Sponsors know this. It seems some people here don't.

Can you prove what you claim? No you can't.

Have sponsors said one public word on this? No they haven't.

A short period of suspension may well be enough. You or I don't know.

Numerous polls online suggest otherwise my friend. Whether you want to believe them or not is your prerogative. I wouldn't put full faith in them either but it gives you some idea of public opinion on the issue. Basically I have just as much proof as those suggesting more want them back. They can't prove it to the contrary so why is your lecture only aimed at me?

And one sponsor has in fact said they're keeping an eye on the situation, in case you haven't noticed. Fact is, while sponsors were targeting the rugby community. The sport has been a major talking point in Irish society in the last couple of weeks because of this trial, whether you like it or not. With the sport in such a negative spotlight, sponsors will pay attention. Like I said, for anyone to deny this has their head in the sand.

Basically, I'm putting forward arguments and you're just dismissing them as if they don't matter.

They do, and I reckon there's going to be a very angry 'mob' here if they're not allowed play in Ireland again.

mfceiling · 12-04-2018 1:32pm

Mrsmum wrote: »

Of course it's fair. Whose bill is it but his.

I hope someone never brings a court case against you that you win and are left with court costs.

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Comments