Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

13-06-2019 10:17pm

given how jumpy the side admins are about this kind of thing usually, its absolutely staggering how many posts in this thread just today have explicitly and directly accused these guys of rape or sexual assault

worth remembering next time we cant mention something over the threat of legal action

Ruraldweller56 · 13-06-2019 10:18pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Meanwhile, poster finds everyone else is to blame!

Au contraire my man. I blame them just as much.

is_that_so · 13-06-2019 10:19pm

Kenny B wrote: »

Modern 18-25 years behave this way,

Mobile phones probably didn't exist when you were in that age bracket, yet you happily pass judgement on people,

You seem to be praising them. I know quite a few 18-25 year olds who really don't behave this way. The judgement, where it exists, is on the behaviour, which by any standards is pretty poor.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2019 10:19pm

jm08 wrote: »

I think they did delete them. The police were able to retrieve some of them.

Have you a link to that?

is_that_so · 13-06-2019 10:20pm

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

Au contraire my man. I blame them just as much.

Well, why not say that instead of going for silly nonsense?

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2019 10:22pm

I presume Neil Francis is currently being roasted by the twitter mob for his comments on Prime Time.
I can see Guinness getting a bit of a roasting for this in the circles they were sponsoring. As Francis said, their sponsorship isn't pivotal to the club. They have been told to sod off, and fair play to London Irish, shame our own clubs wouldn't do it too.

jeffleppard · 13-06-2019 10:22pm

Jackman25 wrote: »

Not one of the messages she highlights in her tweet is actually from PJ.

What the f**k is an intersectional feminist anyway. She sounds like an absolute dose.

My general impression is that a fairly sizeable percentage of Jackson's detractors, particularly on Twitter, know little or nothing about the actual facts of the trial and nor do they care - a bit like Farage or Bojo, facts are totally secondary, the main goal is relentlessly pursuing the agenda

c.p.w.g.w · 13-06-2019 10:24pm

is_that_so wrote: »

You seem to be praising them. I know quite a few 18-25 year olds who really don't behave this way. The judgement, where it exists, is on the behaviour, which by any standards is pretty poor.

You would be very surprised how they act in a group.

I am in my early 30's, i have sent some fairly questionable material within different watsapp groups. Stuff that i found funny in a frankie boyle way. But if these were posted all over twitter it certainly wouldn't be a fair reflection on how i actually feel about disabled people for example.

is_that_so · 13-06-2019 10:26pm

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

You would be very surprised how they act in a group.

I am in my early 30's, i have sent some fairly questionable material within different watsapp groups. Stuff that i found funny in a frankie boyle way. But if these were posted all over twitter it certainly wouldn't be a fair reflection on how i actually feel about disabled people for example.

It's really not new at all, just a different format and far more unfiltered these days. Social media amplifies it. Idiots will always be idiots.

Yeah_Right · 13-06-2019 10:26pm

KaneToad wrote: »

"There was a lot of spit roast last night"

That is shocking! Disgusting! I'm outraged and offended!

I actually think he said just "spit" not "spit roast". But obviously I'm still outraged.

What did Darren Cave write?

What did the complainant write in a message accompanying a photo of the other girls at the house?

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2019 10:27pm

jeffleppard wrote: »

My general impression is that a fairly sizeable percentage of Jackson's detractors, particularly on Twitter, know little or nothing about the actual facts of the trial and nor do they care - a bit like Farage or Bojo, facts are totally secondary, the main goal is relentlessly pursuing the agenda

+1

#metoo attack dogs, facts nor real people don't matter, the twitter suffragettes will have their day.

Ruraldweller56 · 13-06-2019 10:28pm

is_that_so wrote: »

Well, why not say that instead of going for silly nonsense?

What 'silly nonsense' am I going for, exactly?

The ones vilifying these lads the most are deranged feminist extremists and rabid liberals who want kids in primary school putting condoms on bananas and then act surprised that these lads wound up the way they are.

If you think that's me defending them or blaming everyone else you're off the mark.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 13-06-2019 10:28pm

Kenny B wrote: »

Modern 18-25 years behave this way,

Mobile phones probably didn't exist when you were in that age bracket, yet you happily pass judgement on people,

I’m 35. What are you talking about? Mobile phone became commonplace when I was 16 or 17. I was in the 18-25 age bracket from 2002-2009. What age did you think I was?

is_that_so · 13-06-2019 10:30pm

Ruraldweller56 wrote: »

What 'silly nonsense' am I going for, exactly?

The ones vilifying these lads the most are deranged feminist extremists and rabid liberals who want kids in primary school putting condoms on bananas and then act surprised that these lads wound up the way they are.

If you think that's me defending them or blaming everyone else you're off the mark.

This sounds quite a lot like the wild stuff that you're ranting about. Why do you care what you people you don't know have to say about anything?

Kenny B · 13-06-2019 10:31pm

is_that_so wrote: »

You seem to be praising them. I know quite a few 18-25 year olds who really don't behave this way. The judgement, where it exists, is on the behaviour, which by any standards is pretty poor.

To an extent i would be, they tried to move on with their lives after the trial but people refuse to accept the possibility that they are innocent. They are innocent, it's a fact and there are people destroying their lives for revenge when the mob don't even know all the facts.

Nobody has to choose a side here, i don't understand how condemning them for saying allegedly nasty stuff makes it ok to destroy them.

Frankie Boyle

Kenny B · 13-06-2019 10:31pm

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I’m 35. What are you talking about? Mobile phone became commonplace when I was 16 or 17. I was in the 18-25 age bracket from 2002-2009. What age did you think I was?

150

Ruraldweller56 · 13-06-2019 10:33pm

is_that_so wrote: »

This sounds quite a lot like the wild stuff that you're ranting about. Why do you care what you people you don't know have to say about anything?

What you people you don't know have to say?

Try English.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 13-06-2019 10:34pm

Kenny B wrote: »

150

Ah. I see what I’m dealing with here. Thanks for giving notice!

_blaaz · 13-06-2019 10:34pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Hide? What are you on about. They were not on trial for the whatsapp messages.

They should been...if they carried on about my sister like.this....id not be too impressed with them not facing sancture

But like i said,hide behind the courts all you want.....ots obvious to see who your siding with

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2019 10:36pm

_blaaz wrote: »

They should been...if they carried on about my sister like.this....id not be too impressed with them not facing sancture

But like i said,hide behind the courts all you want.....ots obvious to see who your siding with

I'm allowing all involved, including the one you are identifying with as your sister, the liberty to make a mistake and to move on with their lives.

Is that reasonable?

is_that_so · 13-06-2019 10:37pm

Kenny B wrote: »

To an extent i would be, they tried to move on with their lives after the trial but people refuse to accept the possibility that they are innocent. They are innocent, it's a fact and there are people destroying their lives for revenge when the mob don't even know all the facts.

Nobody has to choose a side here, i don't understand how condemning them for saying allegedly nasty stuff makes it ok to destroy them.

Frankie Boyle

There is an element of this that some people find very distasteful and they are not going to change their minds on it. While many will accept the verdict some of the other behaviour still leaves them with a poor view of both. Once their careers end that will fade but this will follow them until then.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2019 10:39pm

is_that_so wrote: »

There is an element of this that some people find very distasteful and they are not going to change their minds on it. While many will accept the verdict some of the other behaviour still leaves them with a poor view of both. Once their careers end that will fade but this will follow them until then.

A major club has accepted the loss of two sponsors and still wants him to play for them.

The mob are losing.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts · 13-06-2019 10:40pm

is_that_so wrote: »

There is an element of this that some people find very distasteful and they are not going to change their minds on it. While many will accept the verdict some of the other behaviour still leaves them with a poor view of both. Once their careers end that will fade but this will follow them until then.

That’s my view pretty much. And thankfully the thought police don’t exist so that’s how it’ll remain.

jm08 · 13-06-2019 10:40pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have you a link to that?

https://www.rsvplive.ie/news/irish-news/full-transcript-text-messages-sent-12283375

If you go down through the texts, it tells you some messages were deleted and/or retrieved.

_blaaz · 13-06-2019 10:42pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I'm allowing all involved, including the one you are identifying with as your sister, the liberty to make a mistake and to move on with their lives.

Is that reasonable?

Not if it was my sister (which it wasnt).no

I dont make mistakes like this,why should i put up with others doing so??

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2019 10:42pm

jm08 wrote: »

https://www.rsvplive.ie/news/irish-news/full-transcript-text-messages-sent-12283375

If you go down through the texts, it tells you some messages were deleted and/or retrieved.

I knew that. You said all were deleted.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2019 10:43pm

_blaaz wrote: »

Not if it was my sister (which it wasnt).no

I dont make mistakes like this,why should i put up with others doing so??

Have you ever made a mistake?

Ever objectified a woman?

GhostyMcGhost · 13-06-2019 10:45pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ever been dick yourself or are you squeaky clean and without mistake?

Nobody, not even me are "squeaky clean". Of course I've made mistakes

Have I ever had a gang bang and bragged to the lads about it using degrading language?... No can't say I have

is_that_so · 13-06-2019 10:45pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A major club has accepted the loss of two sponsors and still wants him to play for them.

The mob are losing.

That's their prerogative just as it is the prerogative of the "mob" to hold their views. It's not right or wrong, just positions which you agree or disagree with.

_blaaz · 13-06-2019 10:46pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Have you ever made a mistake?

Ever objectified a woman?

Not to extent of messing was going on here,no

Yous can defend it all yous want,but id be hoping they give alot of time looking over there shoulder for retribution incoming for their carry on

Gimme A Pound · 13-06-2019 10:48pm

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

Nobody, not even me are "squeaky clean". Of course I've made mistakes

Have I ever had a gang bang and bragged to the lads about it using degrading language?... No can't say I have

Exactly. Nobody suggested anywhere that anyone is squeaky clean or never made a mistake. This is obviously not just a mistake either. Dishonest bollox.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2019 10:48pm

GhostyMcGhost wrote: »

Nobody, not even me are "squeaky clean". Of course I've made mistakes

Would you expect to be hounded out of your job for those 'mistakes'?

*What you have done on a night out with other consenting adults is not of relevance really. People do things I wouldn't do, that is no reason to hound them.

jm08 · 13-06-2019 10:50pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I knew that. You said all were deleted.

Thats what I understood to have happened. Some were retrived - some they were unable to retrieve. I also recall that when they were asked to go to the police station, some of the lads advised them to leave their phones at home.

What I don't understand why were the lads trying to hide their text messages?

Another thing can anyone explain why the Players Union didn't give any support to their members. Its almost like their fellow professionals disowned them.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2019 10:51pm

_blaaz wrote: »

Not to extent of messing was going on here,no

Yous can defend it all yous want,but id be hoping they give alot of time looking over there shoulder for retribution incoming for their carry on

Did you ever objectify another woman, have a one night stand?

I am guessing most people do, and it is always with somebody's son or daughter and commonly with somebody's sister or brother.

Gimme A Pound · 13-06-2019 10:53pm

Wadn't a mistake. They'd obviously keep behaving that way if not caught.

_blaaz · 13-06-2019 10:54pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did you ever objectify another woman, have a one night stand?

Several...but regretably for you....this isnt the issue here??

I am guessing most people do, and it is always with somebody's son or daughter and commonly with somebody's sister or brother.

And again...no one is taking issue with the ONS.....why you think they are is beyond me????,....yous have picked up least worst thing of what went on here and are trying (quite poorly) to use it to defend the defensible

Gimme A Pound · 13-06-2019 10:56pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Did you ever objectify another woman, have a one night stand?

I am guessing most people do, and it is always with somebody's son or daughter and commonly with somebody's sister or brother.

Who said there was anything wrong with a mere one night stand or objectifying in the non treating them like a piece of meat way? You'd swear the way these guys behaved is the only way to have a one night stand and the only way to objectify someone.

This is just piss poor.

jm08 · 13-06-2019 10:56pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Would you expect to be hounded out of your job for those 'mistakes'?

*What you have done on a night out with other consenting adults is not of relevance really. People do things I wouldn't do, that is no reason to hound them.

They were 'hounded out' because of the appalling way they treated that young woman. Lets not forget she was a teenager just out of school and she left PJ's house very upset and bleeding. Then in their texts the next day to each other, they spoke of the three girls (one of whom later saved their skin) as sluts.

jeffleppard · 13-06-2019 10:56pm

jm08 wrote: »

Thats what I understood to have happened. Some were retrived - some they were unable to retrieve. I also recall that when they were asked to go to the police station, some of the lads advised them to leave their phones at home.

What I don't understand why were the lads trying to hide their text messages?

Another thing can anyone explain why the Players Union didn't give any support to their members. Its almost like their fellow professionals disowned them.

Olding and Jackson deleted a few messages
Mcllroy deleted 5 messages, but these weren't the same ones Olding and Jackson deleted
Harrison's phone apparently froze up and had to be reset about 2 weeks after Jackson, Olding and McIlroy were arrested, but there was never any proof presented by the prosecution that he deleted any individual messages

Harrison told McIlroy to leave his phone at home - there was no communication from anyone telling Jackson or Olding to leave their phone at home

That last part was actually something that jumped out for me - if Harrison was supposed to be 'managing' the situation, then why were there no messages or calls between him and Jackson or Olding at any point (bar the 'spit roast' video to Olding, which only came out after the trial)

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2019 11:03pm

jm08 wrote: »

They were 'hounded out' because of the appalling way they treated that young woman. Lets not forget she was a teenager just out of school and she left PJ's house very upset and bleeding. Then in their texts the next day to each other, they spoke of the three girls (one of whom later saved their skin) as sluts.

She herself called the other girls 'sluts'. She was 19.

13-06-2019 11:06pm

Funny how some reckon London Irish told diageo to get fooked....its clearly the other way round.

Rugger bugger trying to blame alcohol for the Belfast incident now on primetime .....sweet Jesus.

jm08 · 13-06-2019 11:07pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

She herself called the other girls 'sluts'. She was 19.

And?

jeffleppard · 13-06-2019 11:08pm

jm08 wrote: »

They were 'hounded out' because of the appalling way they treated that young woman. Lets not forget she was a teenager just out of school and she left PJ's house very upset and bleeding. Then in their texts the next day to each other, they spoke of the three girls (one of whom later saved their skin) as sluts.

In their version of events they had a consensual threesome, at least some aspects of which were instigated by her. If that is indeed what happened, what specifically would be appalling about that?

Again on their version of events, it was the realisation that she had been spotted and possibly filmed by someone that knew friends of hers that caused her to become upset when she left, not anything Jackson et al had done to her.

The bleeding may have been menstrual based on some of the evidence that was presented at trial - if that was the case, that's hardly Jackson's fault, and Olding and McIlroy didn't vaginally penetrate her so neither of them was the cause of any internal injury if there was one. It was also entirely possible that any internal injury, if there was one, could have been caused by accident during consensual sex, which both medical witnesses agreed with in their evidence.

Neither Jackson nor Olding actually insulted or even specifically mentioned the complainant on WhatsApp, they used a vulgar term for a threesome and Olding described them as 'top shaggers'. The derogatory language directed at women was all from others in the group.

13-06-2019 11:12pm

Jackson claimed there was no sexual intercourse..... No sex no rape

jm08 · 13-06-2019 11:12pm

Augeo wrote: »

Funny how some reckon London Irish told diageo to get fooked....its clearly the other way round.

Rugger bugger trying to blame alcohol for the Belfast incident now on primetime .....sweet Jesus.

I doubt if Olding had 20+ pints of Guinness!

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2019 11:13pm

jm08 wrote: »

And?

And yourself. The people at that party where not there under duress. What we know is that one person says there was no consent. That person was drunk and went to the house alone and somehow ended upstairs with a man she didn't know, not once, but twice.
The jury decided there was no evidence worthy of saying that rape occurred.

FrancieBrady · 13-06-2019 11:14pm

Augeo wrote: »

Rugger bugger trying to blame alcohol for the Belfast incident now on primetime .....sweet Jesus.

No he didn't. He alluded to the hypocrisy of a company claiming to have 'values' while selling it's product any which way it can.

Yer Da sells Avon · 13-06-2019 11:20pm

FrancieBrady wrote: »

No he didn't. He alluded to the hypocrisy of a company claiming to have 'values' while selling it's product any which way it can.

He did try to blame alcohol, including suggesting that Diageo's products were involved. The disgusting WhatsApp messages were sent the following day, after Jackson and Olding would have sobered up, so alcohol can't be blamed for their misogynistic attitudes.

Gimme A Pound · 13-06-2019 11:21pm

jeffleppard wrote: »

In their version of events they had a consensual threesome, at least some aspects of which were instigated by her. If that is indeed what happened, what specifically would be appalling about that?

Again on their version of events, it was the realisation that she had been spotted and possibly filmed by someone that knew friends of hers that caused her to become upset when she left, not anything Jackson et al had done to her.

The bleeding may have been menstrual based on some of the evidence that was presented at trial - if that was the case, that's hardly Jackson's fault, and Olding and McIlroy didn't vaginally penetrate her so neither of them was the cause of any internal injury if there was one. It was also entirely possible that any internal injury, if there was one, could have been caused by accident during consensual sex, which both medical witnesses agreed with in their evidence.

Neither Jackson nor Olding actually insulted or even specifically mentioned the complainant on WhatsApp, they used a vulgar term for a threesome and Olding described them as 'top shaggers'. The derogatory language directed at women was all from others in the group.

The first level headed argument I've seen in defence of them. And I truly hope it was the case.

jm08 · 13-06-2019 11:25pm

jeffleppard wrote: »

In their version of events they had a consensual threesome, at least some aspects of which were instigated by her. If that is indeed what happened, what specifically would be appalling about that?

Again on their version of events, it was the realisation that she had been spotted and possibly filmed by someone that knew friends of hers that caused her to become upset when she left, not anything Jackson et al had done to her.

The bleeding may have been menstrual based on some of the evidence that was presented at trial - if that was the case, that's hardly Jackson's fault, and Olding and McIlroy didn't vaginally penetrate her so neither of them was the cause of any internal injury if there was one. It was also entirely possible that any internal injury, if there was one, could have been caused by accident during consensual sex, which both medical witnesses agreed with in their evidence.

Surely if the two lads understood it to be consensual, they might have noticed that the person leaving the house was very upset. Any sort of a decent human being should be concerned about that, particularly if they just had consensual sex together.

Neither Jackson nor Olding actually insulted or even specifically mentioned the complainant on WhatsApp, they used a vulgar term for a threesome and Olding described them as 'top shaggers'. The derogatory language directed at women was all from others in the group.

Vulgarity is the least of the issues I'd have with their text messages. I'd have more of a problem with their attitude to women. Eileen Battersby wrote an article in Irish Times where she talked about being in the company of the Munster team (her husband was Munster's Press person), where young women would be actually throwing themselves at the players, but the players were able to restrain themselves and not take advantage of them.

Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Comments