Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Its a self serving gesture by the IRFU, it won't add any more learning points to PJ and SO that the last two years haven't already delivered. I doubt it will serve to stop someone else making similar errors in judgement, if that worked we would have irradiated all crimes by now. As gestures go it doesn't send a strong unequivocal message, it makes the IRFU look pretty weak given the interference of the sponsors

It simply sweeps it away from the IRFUs doorstep to keep the sponsors sweet and keep the money rolling in. They'll need that money to pay them both off so that they dont dispute the decision and take them to court for unfair dismissal. A fresh start awaits them with another club outside of Ireland. Pity.

On the positive side, maybe it will inspire some changes in the way rape cases are dealt with in the future in the UK, I doubt it but who knows.

Faugheen wrote: »

Nah, they lost their jobs because of their actions that night.

You're forgetting - the following bodies were all acting in cahoots.

The Irish media (for completely unbalanced media exposure)
The PSNI (for bothering to investigating the complaint)
The CPS (for believing it had a better than a reasonable chance of securing a conviction)
The Femanzis
Social Media
Liberals/Conservatives
Sexually repressed Catholics
Other unknown dark forces

Augeo wrote: »

Their statements of regret whether genuine or not spoke volumes about their conduct.....if you regret your actions it's not unusual for others to find them unacceptable

Bon voyage top sh@ggers

Yep, tell the children of Ireland...do something you regret and loose everything and face tacit deportation.
We've come a long way.

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Francie you've been living in denial for weeks. This would happen in most rugby playing countries.

Calling people puritanical etc is pointless.

You've invested more energy on this thread than any other poster and it was as plain as the nose on our face what was going to happen.

You can't make a world of your own.

*

FrancieBrady wrote:

I said it all along, the sponsors would go with the loudest noise.

NAGDEFI wrote: »

But this crack of blaming Ireland and it's 'mobs', feminazi, twitterati.. As i said above most rugby playing countries wouldn't allow those fellas play for them.

You're in denial about mobs, twitterati, feminazis. It's just ordinary public opinion. No organised 5th columns. You've been blaming these groups in your head when they are actually the people you deal with in your daily life, be they family, neighbours etc.

Ireland of 2018, or most western countries isn't ready to have 'top shaggers' on the national team. Ireland as a whole, that's the size of it, no conspiracies. It's not Vegas here or in most countries.

We're ahead of the liberal curve in many respects, with Same Sex Marriage for example.

Ireland's hypocritical moral indignation about sex comes from somewhere. Personally I think most of this came from a latent strain of RC hangups.
'We know it goes on, we partake in it ourselves maybe, but do not get caught doing it, because we need to feel morally superior and righteous.

Add in the feminazis with the 'a girl can withdraw consent the morning after if she wants to' and the defendants didn't have a chance. They were gone from day one.

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah thank god that beacon of morality Bank of Ireland have come along to save the day. :rolleyes:

The banks helped rob the state of its sovereignity , causing horrific misery to many , now handing out moralistic lectures - PLEASE spare me - Olding and Jackson are finished wont play in or for Ireland again , I would have joined the witch-hunt if they were found guilty , rape is a horrific crime , but if they were truly innocent -

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Again, the same would happen in England or New Zealand and they're not Catholic countries.

For the last time The Roman Catholic Church had nothing to do with Protestant alumni of Methodist College Belfast doing what they did and said.

Childish trying to look for someone to blame when you don't get your way. Your in your 50s man.. Come on.

I am talking about the REACTION not the action.

We'll have to agree to disagree, I recognised a lot of the moral indignation about this. And it is exactly the same, 'get them out of sight' moral indignation that charactherised the last generation in this country.
Then we had the feminists, who had plenty to say about the male actions, the sport but sweet FA to say about how women behave.

NAGDEFI wrote: »

BALLSOLOGY. The reaction would be the same abroad. Are you familiar with how Christian countries like Samoa, Fiji, SA and New Zealand are?

That may be. I am talking about Ireland.

About time you stopped belittling your own country. Go somewhere else to live and it's not all sunshine and roses either.a key changing point in Irish society.

How apt, considering that's what the IRFU have said to innocent men for fear of losing money or annoying the already annoyed.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The chilling effect of this is a little frightening. Nobody should feel that they have to self-censor in private correspondence among friends or family just in case that private correspondence is later published, and they face consequences because of what they said in what was intended to be a private conversation between specific individuals.

What you are completely ignoring here is that their own actions that evening played a big part in those conversations becoming public. They found themselves the subject of a police investigation and were not entirely blameless for the fact that they were being investigated by police.

You're making it sound like a bunch of rugby players had a saucy WhatsApp conversation, that there was no actual incident involving the complainant and that the men are being pilloried purely for the content of texts they sent each other.

Strazdas wrote: »

What you are completely ignoring here is that their own actions that evening played a big part in those conversations becoming public. They found themselves the subject of a police investigation and were not entirely blameless for the fact that they were being investigated by police.

You're making it sound like a bunch of rugby players had a saucy WhatsApp conversation, that there was no actual incident involving the complainant and that the men are being pilloried purely for the content of texts they sent each other.

Nobody condones what happened that night. They contest that the punishment is disproportionately severe and just salves higher moral ground arrogance.

Strazdas wrote: »

What you are completely ignoring here is that their own actions that evening played a big part in those conversations becoming public. They found themselves the subject of a police investigation and were not entirely blameless for the fact that they were being investigated by police.

You're making it sound like a bunch of rugby players had a saucy WhatsApp conversation, that there was no actual incident involving the complainant and that the men are being pilloried purely for the content of texts they sent each other.

They were found innocent of the crime which the aforementioned police investigation was investigating. There is nothing wrong with consensual sexual activity. Ergo, the entire premise on which the messages became public is wrong - yet another reason the details of a trial should be considered classified information to everyone except for those directly involved in the case.

Your remarks would of course be entirely valid if the verdict in this case had been a guilty verdict. But it was not.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Payout. They are still negotiating it apparently.
BOI feels morally superior again...phew!

Kind of ironic that a financial institution who conned many families out of their money in the tracker mortgage scandal takes the high moral ground in this case. Disappointing that money is taking precedence over a chance at redemption for PJ and SO. In some ways this decision is damning of our modern consumer driven society. Money talks and that's all that matters....

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Pretty much-hell, I even remember when 3 were doing the adverts where they super imposed Martin O'Neill's head onto your average punter in the pub-they never used Roy's head, probably because of the Saipan incident.
If a sponsor says 'we don't feel these guys represent us' then they're outta there.
Ditto if they were women.

Sport sucks in that regard-just ask Tiger Woods-the amount of endorsements he lost-had hundred of millions wiped away in an instant.

It's a pity there wasn't as much of a protest movement when banks such as BOI 'raped' Irish citizens in the various mortgage scandals as there was for the ibelieveher movement. It will be interesting to see if a protest movement continues for victims of rape. Or will the noise die down now that the mob has gotten their pound of flesh.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The chilling effect of this is a little frightening. Nobody should feel that they have to self-censor in private correspondence among friends or family just in case that private correspondence is later published, and they face consequences because of what they said in what was intended to be a private conversation between specific individuals.

On the plus side, this may very well put manners on any other professional or high profile sports star who just might think twice about how they treat those women who they think idolise them.

These lads behaved like absolute scumbags, and when you work in a high profile public well paid job, there are consequences for that kind of behaviour.

almostover wrote: »

Kind of ironic that a financial institution who conned many families out of their money in the tracker mortgage scandal takes the high moral ground in this case. Disappointing that money is taking precedence over a chance at redemption for PJ and SO. In some ways this decision is damning of our modern consumer driven society. Money talks and that's all that matters....

Make no mistake, BOI didn't rear up in media until this week, nor did any of the other sponsors....I'll bet the decision was made before they went public.

Augeo wrote: »

The key witness claims it was definitely a spitroast with Jackson penetrating with his penis.... but Jackson denies that....no sex no rape ....handy

Olding claimed he couldn't see if Jackson was fnvking her or fingering her.....

That's farcical IMO

And then you have Blaine McIlroy's little cameo...