Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

facehugger99 · 12-04-2018 3:54pm

givyjoe wrote: »

Sweet sweet irony.:rolleyes: You make a pathetic jab and AGAIN, use a ridiculous example. OJ did commit the murder (everyone knows it) hence why he wrote the book "If i did murder them.. this is how id do it" His sponsorship were cut because he's a murderer. As we now know, the glove didn't fit, because it shrank. OJ was also successfully sued in a Civil Case for the murders. I'd wager my life savings that the complainant won't be doing likewise successfully. Perhaps you can choose less ludicrous examples.

So basically what you're saying is that if someone is found innocent in a court case, they might still actually be guilty?

jm08 · 12-04-2018 3:56pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I thought it was Newstalk I heard her on. But I switch between RYE and NT on the commute, so could be wrong.

Basically all the male contributions were bad, from the defendant's to Willie John to male rugby and not a word, or single syllable about women's responsibilities

Fairly clear agenda there and it isn't to prevent rape primarily.

Do you have any criticisms with what the CEO of the Rape Crisis Centre said on Morning Ireland?

Venom · 12-04-2018 3:57pm

Grayson wrote: »

I'd allow people to claim money back but means test it. There's no reason a person with a hundred million in the bank should be able to claim back. On the other hand there's no reason someone should go broke.

I'd like to see some kind of self regulation within the legal professions to insure that their charges don't get too excessive. But that's never going to happen.

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it leads to situations like in the US, where someone could be sued into bankruptcy via frivolous lawsuits. The loser of such BS legal claims should always have to pay all court costs.

I agree with means testing for free legal aid but I do think your legal costs should be covered if you're found not guilty or win your case, regardless of how much money you have in the bank. The state shouldn't get to drag people through the court system when there is little chance of them getting a conviction and not have to suffer any financial penalty.

jimmycrackcorm · 12-04-2018 3:57pm

meeeeh wrote:

I think where it ends is that I don't want my son to idolize men who treat women only as a piece of meet to be passed around and label them as slut. I don't want my daughter to be labelled a slut by man she sleeps with. I don't want her leaving his place crying and bleeding. And I certainly don't want my kids to think it's ever ok to have a laugh at the expense of someone else's distress.

There was a very good newspaper article mentioned in another post questioning why there is an assumption that people playing sports should automatically be assumed to be role models.

If you think your son is going to grow up and not be having private conversations with his friends that you would disapprove of then you may start fitting a pair of angel wings and a halo on him now.

Venom · 12-04-2018 3:59pm

jm08 wrote: »

CEO (Michael Sodan) resigned a couple of years ago because he accessed a porn site from his desk which was against company policy.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2004/0530/50702-boi/

Would he have had to resign for accessing porn from his home computer tho?

FrancieBrady · 12-04-2018 4:03pm

jm08 wrote: »

Do you have any criticisms with what the CEO of the Rape Crisis Centre said on Morning Ireland?

Yes. It was focussed on the frailities of males. There was no criticism of the woman involved here. And that is wrong.
If the men are not guilty then if she has a problem with the behaviour there is a wider responsibility. She ignored that to pound the men are bad drum.

jm08 · 12-04-2018 4:07pm

alchemist33 wrote: »

But, as with the point above, that's for things done at work or using work equipment. Not private messages unconnected to work.

I don't think the CEO of BOI resigned because he was wasting banking time looking at porn sites.

givyjoe · 12-04-2018 4:08pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

So basically what you're saying is that if someone is found innocent in a court case, they might still actually be guilty?

:rolleyes:
I shouldn't be surprised that you are the one that responds with this.
OJ beat his wife multiple times
OJ fled from the cops when they came to arrest/charge him
OJ was sued successfully in Civil Court relating to the crime
OJ wrote a book on how he 'would have murdered them'

Nothing in PJ's actions before or after the alleged crime suggest he actually did it. If you believe the two cases are comparable, by all means embarrass yourself.

meeeeh · 12-04-2018 4:13pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Will you tell them that if they make a mistake their careers are basically over and that one of their parents proudly saw to it that a number of people's careers ended?

I posted on boards.ie, I think you overestimate my influence excessively, in fact only reaction I influenced is my own. I suspect that even my husband doesn't exactly agree with me.

That being said I don't want any sports personalities or other celebrities to be put on pedestal. But I am also realistic enough to know they have influence. Normally I would have no interest in people's private life but when it's hard to miss then I will have an opinion. There is also failing of rugby (sports) clubs. They have no problem encouraging those players, telling them how great they are, instructing them what to eat, how to exercise but it seems they teach them very little how to deal with other trappings of their social status. I don't like how rape trials are reported on and defendants named but this was no exception, they knew that's how things are done in UK. There were also plenty of very public trials of different celebrities to teach them to be more careful. They can't have the excuse that they didn't think something like this could happen to them. Call it my type of victim blaming but they are victims of their own arrogance. Did they pay excessive price? Maybe but they were also excessively revarded before (in comparison to average person).

Grayson · 12-04-2018 4:13pm

givyjoe wrote: »

Sweet sweet irony.:rolleyes: You make a pathetic jab and AGAIN, use a ridiculous example. OJ did commit the murder (everyone knows it) hence why he wrote the book "If i did murder them.. this is how id do it" His sponsorship were cut because he's a murderer. As we now know, the glove didn't fit, because it shrank. OJ was also successfully sued in a Civil Case for the murders. I'd wager my life savings that the complainant won't be doing likewise successfully. Perhaps you can choose less ludicrous examples.

Are you saying OJ isn't innocent? But a jury acquitted him! Isn't that the gold standard?

My point is that sponsors dropped him because they didn't want to be associated with him. It wasn't because he was found not guilty by a jury.

BoI and other companies are perfectly entitled to end any and all relationships with these players. A guilty/not guilty verdict doesn't matter. All that matters is if they feel that person is someone they want to represent them.

facehugger99 · 12-04-2018 4:15pm

givyjoe wrote: »

:rolleyes:
I shouldn't be surprised that you are the one that responds with this.
OJ beat his wife multiple times
OJ fled from the cops when they came to arrest/charge him
OJ was sued successfully in Civil Court relating to the crime
OJ wrote a book on how he 'would have murdered them'

So, the jury got it wrong?

jm08 · 12-04-2018 4:16pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes. It was focussed on the frailities of males. There was no criticism of the woman involved here. And that is wrong.
If the men are not guilty then if she has a problem with the behaviour there is a wider responsibility. She ignored that to pound the men are bad drum.

She was specifically talking about the derogatory way that the men discussed woman in the texts. She wasn't talking about the court case. The only think she said was that they were acquitted of all charges.

“There has to be a real examination of their disrespectful and derogatory behaviour in order to identify what they as role models, people who are held up as the best in the land, would think of women, as was shown in the WhatsApp texts, in a way that they themselves recognise were hurtful and harmful.
“It has to be looked at not just in the context of what they said that night, but whether that it is a way of operating within rugby, that rugby condones or allows to happen.”

kirving · 12-04-2018 4:17pm

Mrsmum wrote: »

Seriously. you are boring me now. We all have to cut our cloth and if I was accused of something whereby I needed legal representation I would chose one that I could afford. If I could afford nothing I would apply for legal aid and put up with whoever I got. If I thought I needed the big boys or gals I would beg, borrow or steal so to speak to afford them. And if I was found not guilty I would say "didn't I do the right thing engaging X to represent me" and I would never for one moment think someone else should pay my bill from my chosen expensive lawyer.

So what you're saying is... (Not referring to the current case btw)

I can make a claim that you and your friends have done something which I made up entirely in my head. Something which will ruin your life and send you to prison for years. The DPP decide to try all of you together as it's more likely that your stories will contradict one another and they'll get a conviction. Instead of a potential two week trial, its now 8 weeks.

After all that, you and your family are homeless because you've had to sell your house to defend yourself against something I dreamed up.

Yep, sounds fair to me.

You have a subjective viewpoint which you haven't thought through fully, and are now scrambling to justify it.

Grayson · 12-04-2018 4:17pm

facehugger99 wrote: »

Never put anything in an email or text message that you aren't happy to read aloud to your family and colleagues.

It's a very sensible rule to live by.

People thinking their texts are private, - they're not.

Everytime I see a scandal about something like that i have to think what kind of idiots are they? You hear about places like Uber and wonder "how did they ever think that was acceptable?"

jm08 · 12-04-2018 4:18pm

Meanwhile, in a school in Cork.

School launches investigation after 'sexual assault list' posted in boys toilets

Shockingly, the list then advised that the young woman who garnered the greatest number of 'ticks' beside her name would be targeted for a sexual assault.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/school-launches-investigation-after-sexual-assault-list-posted-in-boys-toilets-36800398.html

givyjoe · 12-04-2018 4:19pm

Grayson wrote: »

Are you saying OJ isn't innocent? But a jury acquitted him! Isn't that the gold standard?

My point is that sponsors dropped him because they didn't want to be associated with him. It wasn't because he was found not guilty by a jury.

BoI and other companies are perfectly entitled to end any and all relationships with these players. A guilty/not guilty verdict doesn't matter. All that matters is if they feel that person is someone they want to represent them.

I believe OJ it, he effectively admitted as much with his book. He was found not guilty in court of course, with the reasonable doubt coming from the glove which had shrunk. He was dropped because he was clearly the person who murdered, sorry killed, his ex wife, with the case exposing his past beatings of his ex wife. Fairly simple really.

Do you really need these details explained to you to clarify why the examples aren't equivalent OR relevant?

The ONLY reason such companies will stop sponsoring them, is because they may believe it will negatively impact them. I'd say you knew that already, but based on your posts, probably not.

BBDBB · 12-04-2018 4:19pm

^^I expect that will be Paddy Jacksons fault by 6pm today

ArthurDayne · 12-04-2018 4:20pm

meeeeh wrote: »

I think where it ends is that I don't want my son to idolize men who treat women only as a piece of meet to be passed around and label them as slut. I don't want my daughter to be labelled a slut by man she sleeps with. I don't want her leaving his place crying and bleeding. And I certainly don't want my kids to think it's ever ok to have a laugh at the expense of someone else's distress.

I don't want to police people's private life but if their toxic attitudes spill into public life then don't expect me to applaud them. If they want to work in a call centre or cleaning or some anonymous job then I am sure they will be fine but they are not entitled to represent their country and be idolized by millions.

Your concerns as a parent are valid, and your aspirations for your children are perfectly normal, responsible and admirable. They are however, sadly, predicated on naivety. If you want to live in a dreamworld where you assume that everyone's public persona corresponds to their private persona then you are certainly entitled to live your days blissfully in denial -- but calling for the effectively automatic deprivation of careers and livelihoods over crude comments and acting like a d**k in their private lives, whether you would accept the term or not, is an act of attempted 'thought-policing'.

How will you ever know that the people your son idolises don't treat women as pieces of meat? Maybe he will idolise some wonderful sports icon who by all public appearances is the exemplar of chivalry, but is also privately calling his sexual conquests sluts and using disgusting metaphors for their private parts. You're going to have to hire a Private Detective to hack the phone of every person your son idolises or even hangs out with to ensure that these people pass your test of moral sanctity.

Nobody in this debate has ever suggested that you applaud Jackson and his mates. Nobody. What is being said is that we cannot crucify people and automatically deprive them of their careers for not always conforming to moral perfection in their private lives. If we were to apply your test, that only morally pure people can be in positions of authority or representing a country, how many otherwise good people would be culled?

If you want a world where we all treat eachother respectfully 24/7; where we all talk politely with our friends; where we all incessantly and religiously stay within the lines of chivalry and morality at every moment of our lives; and where we all never say or do anything to upset anyone or say mean and disgusting things behind their back --- then I applaud that. That's how I will try to raise my kids too if I ever have any. I don't expect they will attain this impossible standard of moral perfection. I expect they will deviate from it at many junctures in their lives -- but I hope they do not ever have to grow up in your world where their failure to meet that standard means they can be robbed of everything they have worked for just because they have had possible success in life and are publicly known.

upandcumming · 12-04-2018 4:22pm

jm08 wrote: »

Francie - here is written content of CEO of Rape Crisis Centre on Morning Ireland.

Rugby must deal with ‘derogatory’ behaviour - Rape Crisis Centre
Chief executive says calls for Jackson and Olding to be reinstated are a ‘shame and a pity’

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rugby-must-deal-with-derogatory-behaviour-rape-crisis-centre-1.3459365

And what makes them the authority on anything?

upandcumming · 12-04-2018 4:25pm

jm08 wrote: »

Why didn't Jackson apply for legal aid like Olding did? Is it because legal aid would not pay for two counsels and a solicitor?

Olding ran out of money partway through the trial. Jackson could afford this. To be honest, I wouldn't be hanging my hat on legal aid in this case.

upandcumming · 12-04-2018 4:29pm

jm08 wrote: »

Meanwhile, in a school in Cork.

School launches investigation after 'sexual assault list' posted in boys toilets

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/school-launches-investigation-after-sexual-assault-list-posted-in-boys-toilets-36800398.html

This, while abhorrent, has nothing to do with this trial or aftermath.

meeeeh · 12-04-2018 4:31pm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

...a novel written about parenting by someone who has no kids...

I have no intention digging into anyone's private life but their private life is not private it's public because of the trial. That's the difference.

I'm fairly realistic about kids but it's my job they don't grow into men like those on trial and that is the job I tend to try to achieve.

jm08 · 12-04-2018 4:33pm

Venom wrote: »

Would he have had to resign for accessing porn from his home computer tho?

I'd imagine the bank owned his home computer as well.

Venom · 12-04-2018 4:33pm

Grayson wrote: »

Everytime I see a scandal about something like that i have to think what kind of idiots are they? You hear about places like Uber and wonder "how did they ever think that was acceptable?"

Except 99.9% of the time said scandal involves people posting outrageous stuff on social media platforms like a certain senator recently did and who is now in a world of ****. Very rarely do people get grief for private messages to others outside the public eye.

jm08 · 12-04-2018 4:44pm

upandcumming wrote: »

This, while abhorrent, has nothing to do with this trial or aftermath.

Really. We've just had a blow-by-blow account about how sports starts treat women like a piece of meat and get away with it.

givyjoe · 12-04-2018 4:47pm

jm08 wrote: »

Really. We've just had a blow-by-blow account about how sports starts treat women like a piece of meat and get away with it.

Yeah they really 'got away with it'. :rolleyes:.

jm08 · 12-04-2018 4:49pm

upandcumming wrote: »

Olding ran out of money partway through the trial. Jackson could afford this. To be honest, I wouldn't be hanging my hat on legal aid in this case.

Jackson has huge earning capability. He probably earns 10 times what a person of his age earns here and probably 20 times if he moved to France. He would get at least 500K a year there.

12-04-2018 4:50pm

jm08 wrote: »

Really. We've just had a blow-by-blow account about how sports starts treat women like a piece of meat and get away with it.

If my son was one of the kids involved, I would be the person taking responsibility for his actions, not passing the buck to Paddy Jackson.

Grayson · 12-04-2018 4:51pm

Venom wrote: »

Except 99.9% of the time said scandal involves people posting outrageous stuff on social media platforms like a certain senator recently did and who is now in a world of ****. Very rarely do people get grief for private messages to others outside the public eye.

Obviously. If it's private than no-one knows about it.

The thing is in this case the players essentially have a number of duties that com with their job.
One is to play rugby. The verdict and the texts do not impact that at all.
The other responsibilities include representing their country . Being ambassadors for certain products and sponsors.
Those messages and their behaviour that night affects their ability to do that. Sure they were sent privately but they are now public. They can't be made private again. the public can't forget them.

upandcumming · 12-04-2018 4:52pm

jm08 wrote: »

Why didn't Jackson apply for legal aid like Olding did? Is it because legal aid would not pay for two counsels and a solicitor?

upandcumming wrote: »

Olding ran out of money partway through the trial. Jackson could afford this. To be honest, I wouldn't be hanging my hat on legal aid in this case.

jm08 wrote: »

Jackson has huge earning capability. He probably earns 10 times what a person of his age earns here and probably 20 times if he moved to France. He would get at least 500K a year there.

I answered your question here. What are you talking about now?

Grayson · 12-04-2018 4:53pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If my son was one of the kids involved, I would be the person taking responsibility for his actions, not passing the buck to Paddy Jackson.

To be fair although he's got nothing to do with the school in cork there are people here who think he bears no responsibility for his own actions. the guys a fecking role model for some people here.

upandcumming · 12-04-2018 4:56pm

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair although he's got nothing to do with the school in cork there are people here who think he bears no responsibility for his own actions. the guys a fecking role model for some people here.

12-04-2018 4:58pm

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair although he's got nothing to do with the school in cork there are people here who think he bears no responsibility for his own actions. the guys a fecking role model for some people here.

He has a responsibility for what he does in public and what he does on a rugby pitch.

It is no ones business what he does in his bedroom and what messages he sends in private to his friends (or more to the point the messages his friends send that he is now responsible for).

That is the same standard applied to you and I, and it is the same standard that should be applied to him.

It won't happen this way, but that is the way it should be.

If anyone thought for a second that the wider group of defendants attitudes towards women were acceptable, they certainly shouldn't have any doubt now.

I really have absolutely no idea why the actions of school kids in Cork are even in the news, it's a matter for parents and teachers. Shining a media spotlight on a situation involving children, especially with the heightened atmosphere in the country right now is deeply irresponsible in my opinion.

givyjoe · 12-04-2018 5:00pm

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair although he's got nothing to do with the school in cork there are people here who think he bears no responsibility for his own actions. the guys a fecking role model for some people here.

Id say you're misrepresenting a fair few people here with that nonsense.

The only relevant point you made is :

Grayson wrote: »

...he's got nothing to do with the school in cork ....[/B]

jm08 · 12-04-2018 5:01pm

upandcumming wrote: »

And what makes them the authority on anything?

In a nutshell:

Rape Crisis Network

The Rape Crisis Network (RCNI) is a multi-member political and campaigning organisation committed to the elimination of all forms of sexual violence through effecting political, cultural and social change.
Our agenda to effect change is directly provided by the experience and expertise of our member Rape Crisis Centres (RCCs).
Our vision is a society where rape and all other forms of sexual violence no longer exists.

Dublin Rape Crisis Centre
http://www.drcc.ie/about-us/

FrancieBrady · 12-04-2018 5:01pm

jm08 wrote: »

Meanwhile, in a school in Cork.

School launches investigation after 'sexual assault list' posted in boys toilets

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/school-launches-investigation-after-sexual-assault-list-posted-in-boys-toilets-36800398.html

Send them to France and claim a Twiiterati feminist victory?

Roger Hassenforder · 12-04-2018 5:01pm

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair although he's got nothing to do with the school in cork there are people here who think he bears no responsibility for his own actions. the guys a fecking role model for some people here.

To be fair too, i dont think many have him on a pedestal after his and his buddies antics, where they came accross as dicks.
but that said he shouldn't lose his livelihood and career. He was acquitted. Therefore he should be returned to the same state he was in before being charged, albeit not know for being very "respectful" of women in his private life.
This is very unpalatable for the #ibelieveher mob who are insisting on their pound of flesh.

jimmycrackcorm · 12-04-2018 5:04pm

meeeeh wrote:

I have no intention digging into anyone's private life but their private life is not private it's public because of the trial. That's the difference.

Given that they remain innocent of the accusations in court, then it calls into question why their private messages should have been made public.

The standard that they are being held to implies that it works be OK to leak private data and messages of public figures.

jm08 wrote:

I'd imagine the bank owned his home computer as well.

Soddens case was coincidentally raised by the unhappy IT dept that he was outsourcing to HP.

FrancieBrady · 12-04-2018 5:07pm

jm08 wrote: »

She was specifically talking about the derogatory way that the men discussed woman in the texts. She wasn't talking about the court case. The only think she said was that they were acquitted of all charges.

No she wasn't she was on to respond to the extra information about the trial released yesterday.
Then she proceeded to use the events as a stick to beat all men involved in rugby. Not one mention about how a woman can behave responsibly either.
Her remit is to prevent rape and to support the victims of it.
She used her position to have a good old arrogant feminist rant

jm08 · 12-04-2018 5:08pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If my son was one of the kids involved, I would be the person taking responsibility for his actions, not passing the buck to Paddy Jackson.

The parents need to take responsiblity for the kids, but parents need the help of the rest of society and decent role models to bring up decent young human beings.

Take for example Conor McGregor as a role model. I bet most young men & women think he is great, while their parents think he is a bit of a mouth (being kind to him).

upandcumming · 12-04-2018 5:16pm

jm08 wrote: »

In a nutshell:
The Rape Crisis Network (RCNI) is a multi-member political and campaigning organisation committed to the elimination of all forms of sexual violence through effecting political, cultural and social change.
Our agenda to effect change is directly provided by the experience and expertise of our member Rape Crisis Centres (RCCs).
Our vision is a society where rape and all other forms of sexual violence no longer exists.

So they want all of these things? You still haven't told me why they are an authority though?

Just because they are campaigning for the elimination of sexual violence, have an agenda and a vision, it doesn't make them an authority on anything though. And I agree with them! I want an end to sexual violence.

Ronald McDonald probably has similar views on sexual violence, it doesn't make him an authority on anything other than Big Macs.

irishproduce · 12-04-2018 5:17pm

Mrsmum wrote: »

Seriously. you are boring me now. We all have to cut our cloth and if I was accused of something whereby I needed legal representation I would chose one that I could afford. If I could afford nothing I would apply for legal aid and put up with whoever I got. If I thought I needed the big boys or gals I would beg, borrow or steal so to speak to afford them. And if I was found not guilty I would say "didn't I do the right thing engaging X to represent me" and I would never for one moment think someone else should pay my bill from my chosen expensive lawyer.

I think Mrsmum is going through a poor event of rationalisation and it is going very wrong.

12-04-2018 5:19pm

jm08 wrote: »

The parents need to take responsiblity for the kids, but parents need the help of the rest of society and decent role models to bring up decent young human beings.

Take for example Conor McGregor as a role model. I bet most young men & women think he is great, while their parents think he is a bit of a mouth (being kind to him).

If you are relying on total strangers to bring up decent human beings then you've already failed.

By all accounts, point to the discipline and hard work that goes into being a professional sports person, but don't try and project integrity and wholesomeness onto people you don't know, you will be disappointed.

ArthurDayne · 12-04-2018 5:21pm

meeeeh wrote: »

I have no intention digging into anyone's private life but their private life is not private it's public because of the trial. That's the difference.

I'm fairly realistic about kids but it's my job they don't grow into men like those on trial and that is the job I tend to try to achieve.

I do apologise if I am appearing confrontational here but digging into peoples' private lives is exactly what you are advocating. If someone secretly records you in your home and puts it online without your permission and the entire world sees you crawling your house pretending to be a cat, that is still your private life notwithstanding that it has been made public knowledge. Just because the details of a trial are made public knowledge does not change the fact that the acts took place in one's private life.

Again, I applaud your second point. I wish you every success in your endeavour to teach your kids to behave in such a way where they will be able to avoid situations that might land them in a courtroom. That is a perfectly responsible pursuit. I do hope however, genuinely, that if your kids careers lead them into the public eye and they have a regrettable sexual encounter and say some mean and dirty things about someone -- that their mother / father is not the first person to call for them to be deprived of their career and to be labelled sexual deviants.

I do sincerely hope that you never end up in the position where you have to be consistent in your beliefs when it comes to your own children.

But I don't have kids -- so what would I know eh?

jm08 · 12-04-2018 5:22pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No she wasn't she was on to respond to the extra information about the trial released yesterday.
Then she proceeded to use the events as a stick to beat all men involved in rugby. Not one mention about how a woman can behave responsibly either.
Her remit is to prevent rape and to support the victims of it.
She used her position to have a good old arrogant feminist rant

She was brought on to address Willie John McBride's comments.

Ms Blackwell was responding to calls from former Ireland rugby international Willie John McBride and others for the reinstatement of Mr Olding and Mr Jackson after they were found not guilty raping a 19-year-old woman in south Belfast in June 2016.

Noeleen Blackwell is a fairly distingushed career as a Human Rights lawer and as a former Director General of Free Legal Aid. You won't get away so easily dismissing her as a 'feminnazi', 'mob' or the usual stuff you use to try and denigrate people.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/flac-boss-noeline-blackwell-to-move-to-rape-crisis-charity-1.2506804

NAGDEFI · 12-04-2018 5:28pm

ArthurDayne wrote: »

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.

Exactly. So stop repeating the point that a twitterati group are forcing Jackson and Olding out of a job. It's not true. 2/3rds of the irish public don't want them representing Ireland. Not these twitter groups who have taken over the country, by all accounts.

It's you and your ilk are shoving Jackson and Olding on us. Because they didn't commit rape doesn't mean we have to accept their language and standards and have them representing our country.

So stating a point contrary to yours is 'unhelpful'. Since when were threads on alleged rape supposed to be helpful and have a cathartic effect? So you shouldn't post an opinion here unless it's helpful??? What a stupid statement.

jm08 · 12-04-2018 5:37pm

Deleted User wrote: »

If you are relying on total strangers to bring up decent human beings then you've already failed.

''it takes a village to raise a child''
Hilary Clinton even wrote a book about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Takes_a_Village

By all accounts, point to the discipline and hard work that goes into being a professional sports person, but don't try and project integrity and wholesomeness onto people you don't know, you will be disappointed.

You forgot to mention 'Respect' which is an integral part of rugby. Whether they like it or not, sports people are role models and that is one of the reason why they get sponsorship - people want to wear the same footwear as they do, drive the same cars, basicially copy what they do. People want selfies with them. You see them doing charity work, visiting kids hospitals - that is to portray a wholesome image as well as do some good.

12-04-2018 5:38pm

Noeleen Blackwell has a lot of integrity. I've had the pleasure of speaking with her on a number of occasions and I would respect her a lot.

The information she has access to and the stories she would hear regularly are the stuff of horror. What the rape crisis centres have to deal with is staggering and awful. There are a lot of people here who would have their attitudes softened a good deal by spending a day seeing victims first hand.

Having said that, I don't think anyone has any business holding the defendants to account for their private messages. We've all said things we have since grown out of, we all have held opinions and attitudes that we now look back on with disdain. We have all held prejudices that we've walked away from. Let he who casts the first stone etc etc.

I don't believe the defendants respect themselves anymore than they respect women. It's ironic that they seek women who are open minded about sex yet call them 'sluts' but consider themselves 'top shaggers'. Really what they want are women who are just like them, the finger they use to point out a 'slut' can just as easily be turned on themselves.

I've said it before, the way these people change is by meeting someone who doesn't accept their behaviour. Someone they want to change for. Or they socialise in a different group and realise pretty quickly that the bravado is done and it's time to grow up.

Anyone losing sleep over the whats app comments had better invest in some strong prescription sleeping tablets because the men and women around you probably have similar enough on their phones. The complainant in this trial certainly did.

BBDBB · 12-04-2018 5:41pm

jm08 wrote: »

She was brought on to address Willie John McBride's comments.

Noeleen Blackwell as a fairly distingushed career as a Human Rights lawer and as a former Director General of Free Legal Aid. You won't get away so easily dismissing her as a 'feminnazi', 'mob' or the usual stuff you use to try and denigrate people.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/flac-boss-noeline-blackwell-to-move-to-rape-crisis-charity-1.2506804

How many Ireland caps has she won?

Willie John McBride has 63 (11 as captain)

I think he knows a bit more about the responsibility of playing for Ireland, what it means to wear the shirt and represent your country

I have to concede that in a court of law she probably has him beaten hands down, but the trial is over. Theres an internal investigation being conducted where Noeleens opinion counts for little and WJMc doesnt count for very much either

Evd-Burner · 12-04-2018 5:42pm

Where are these statistics coming from?

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Comments