Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Muahahaha wrote: »

Well I dont agree with that and the poster shouldnt have said it and Im glad you got an apology and have moved on. However Francie you havent helped yourself here either by labelling those of us who do not agree with your position as the mob, feminazis, twitterati, etc. I enjoy your postings on other topics and I know you are a passionate kind of fella but pigeon holing and throwing labels about really doesnt add anything to the debate.

A 'mob' took to the streets with the expressed intention of trying to undermine the verdict. #ibelieveher on Twitter and FB organised the fecking thing.

Im not speaking of consent at all, I dont think anyone is here more than two weeks after the verdict, that debate has long since passed. It is their whatapp texts that is what makes me feel these two players are not becoming of the Irish jersey.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what is acceptable slang for a sexually promiscuous woman.
As I said, my feelings about one woman does not for a minute mean I feel that way about all women and as I said they didn't seem to mind being in the company of sexually promiscuous young women. So where they even being derogatory?

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Ah Joe you've hurt my feelings..

By the way you spelt 'on' wrongly, it's not spelt 'in'. See when you get thick you can't spell 2 letter words:D:D

Oh i see you edited your post Joe. Aren't you clever!

Can you please just imagine me inserting the rolleyes emoji.. on the mobile here. I haven't edited anything.

Your comedy act needs some serious work.

irishproduce wrote: »

Only just learned your ones name this eve. A bit satisfying, only just to know all parties involved now

The victim's name?

NAGDEFI wrote: »

What sort of phone do you have Joe? Is the spelling on Turkyish?:D

Do you have an actual point to make?! I mean are you drunk that you've felt the need to make what, 4 posts, because of one incorrectly spelled word?!

Mad ted.

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Messing Joe. Being silly. Apologies.

I actually think i've been on the thread too long this evening and basically went a bit silly.

Again apologies, and nothing personal at all.

I'm merely mildly irritated by the sh1t puns! Not offended.

Been reading through few posts here, just want to add my two cents.

As for Bill Clinton-you can say 'he got away with it'...but did he really? He lied under oath in front of a committee. There were allegations of worse made against him (rape and assault), and it's never been forgotten-barring current feminists and people who were all 'Hillary for President'. Much of the reason it was never forgotten was the internet had made it's way to most people's homes, so there was constant coverage. It wasn't just TV now.
People tried to say Trump was the worse candidate, because of what he said. But Bill lied before a committee.
And Hillary made awful comments about the women accusing him of horrific things, and aggravated rape survivors.

By the time Hillary went for President-the Clinton brand was toxic, with way too much mud attached. She was so bad, it made it easy for Trump.

Mel Gibson-yeah, not convicted for anti-semetic comments, or the 'raped by a pack of n*****s' tape. Was convicted for beating up his ex. Plead no contest. And yet has a career, was oscar nommed for his last movie...yeah, hollywood is a sick place. Metoo is just a bandaid on a festering wound.

mfceiling wrote: »

And many hadn't.
My father started his family at 23. Me at 30. My brother at 38. My neighbour at 18.

What's the point again? Oh yeah....something, something you are an adult at 21 and should have made all your mistakes by then.

I never understood that mentality-I know you were pointing it out as hypocrisy, and rightly so-but I never got it. I feel like saying 'right, you're grown up now-no more dumb mistakes' is foolish. Be dumb, but don't hurt people. (Not referencing the case, just a life goal).

(I also know people who were married at 20, kids at 22. Makes me grateful I chose to never have kids-tho I might change my mind. Someone I know was sure and certain him and the wife would never have children. Then she had a healthy baby boy at 43-everyone was happy for them, cos they are genuinely nice people).

Muahahaha wrote: »

Well I never said any of what you are saying above. What I am saying is that if you have not learnt how to respect women by the age of 21 then that is on them. They went to the best schools and have good parents yet still they behaved like children. If Jackson and Olding were horny teenagers of 17 or 18 then there is some leeway for them. But at 24 (22 in Oldings case as Tretorn pointed out) they no longer have the defence of being giddy teenagers. Your argument is actually identical to Willie McBrides yesterday "ah sure they are only young lads"- at what point do you expect them to behave appropriately towards women- is 26 okay for you or should we allow them to be derogatory towards women until they are 30 because "they are only young lads"? If they havent grown up by 22/24 then chances are they never will. I feel sorry for the shame they have brought on their parents, there is no way they brought them up in this way.

A tad unfair. I mean most of us learned treat people with respect from being kids-it's the first thing you learn. Not referencing Jackson and co-just referencing things in general. But many people...they have to take time to learn that. They have to make mistakes, figure things out...there's far too much 'keeping up with the joneses'. We're not all the same. I would think the language used by them was something a teenager would use, even at 17 or 18 you'd be calling em idiots.

The recent revelations about the blood on the sheets has added to questions now-Jackson has stated he would not explain where the blood came from (not required to, since it wasn't his or the complainant) but it threw up more questions. Like who's it did belong to, and how did it get there. (Best case scenario-dog or cat got a cut or some other injury, Girlfriend stayed over during time of the month. Worst case scenario-similar incident happened before which paints Jackson in a darker light).

Tbh, the 'rape list' in Cork is not related to the situation in the North-but it's going to weigh on sponsor's minds (you can argue it's unfair-but life's unfair. Even if it wouldn't surprise me it was a stunt).
This will further add to the headache that sponsors will have-having to look at that and say 'oh no, these guys have to become an example'-unfortunately, sports people are meant to be role models. If this behaviour is seen in a positive light-it's going to cause problems in sport.

Look at that Irish boxer who was sent home from the Olympics in shame because he used a banned substance. He harmed nobody but himself, but has been shamed since, and banned from the sport.
You can say 'ah,people make mistakes' but unfortunately, when you represent your country, you're wearing your country-if you screw up, it looks bad on everyone. Yes, they were not found guilty, but the recent lifting of the ban on reporting threw out more questions-with too many non-answers.

flatty wrote: »

Joe schmidt was perfectly happy having other players back who had picked up a drunk lady, and "spit roasted" her, apparently whilst one of their pals was trying to record it.
The hypocrisy and moralising on this thread, and in irish society in general, is staggering. Its no wonder we ended up with the magdalene laundries.

Did he support them though? He never made any comment on this, and what happened with those guys did not result in a court case. That's the difference-those two didn't end up in court accused of a crime. Despite the acquittal, too many questions have emerged since then-and the Whatsapp messages amongst other things left many people with questions.

How you can compare the Magdalene Laundries to a court case I find bizarre. In fact, in 'ye olden days' it was the girl at the center of the case who would have ended up in the Laundries-not the two guys.

In fact, many rape victims (not that I'm alleging the woman at the center of the case was or was not raped) would have been sent there-as they were seen to be 'leading the men on'.

Men had their own problems-but 'Magdalene Laundries', for the most part, wasn't one of them.

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Yes if they were thought some morals when they were younger it would help future behaviour. FFS your posts are so dim! You can't even make the connection with how the lessons taught in youth apply later in life.

I love the way you're following every post of mine. A bit shaken, are we by the cut and thrust of debate?

You're some sad case. My posts are dim? Compared to your "witty" movie titles?
Staying up until after 1 in the morning posting on boards. Sorry I had to go to bed because I have work today.
Shaken by the cut and thrust of debate? Didn't realise you were Jeremy Paxman.

NAGDEFI wrote: »

As Muhaha says when you think of men.. you think of Rory Best, O'Connell, O'Driscoll, Sexton etc.

Eventually most men settle down with a partner/wife like Cronin, Earls, Sexton, Best.

These boys eventually need to grow up have families, provide leadership. I don't think it's feasible to be having 3 somes with your best mate for the rest of your life. Unless we want a generation of Peter Pan's exaggerating they're sex lives and literally not being able to do anything without the best mate beside you.

Grow a pair chaps and stand on your own two feet.

Rory best? As in #notmycaptain Rory best?

I thought he was the devil incarnate still?

Clearly I didn’t get the memo......