Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Omackeral wrote: »

Gonna have to disagree here. I abhor these radical feminist as much as the next person but women should be allowed to wear whatever they want. You can personally find it horrid or classless but basically saying they’re sending out a “come and get me” message isn’t right. If anyone looks at a girl and thinks that, the problem is within themselves. Now I’ve often looked at a girl in a busty or tight outfit and thought DAMN!!!! but never did I think oh she’s looking for it off me or anyone else. She might be a very confident and proud of her image, she might be the opposite and trying to make up for low esteem, she might enjoy attention or she might just bloody like the clothes but I don’t agree with that “sending a message” idea ,as pertains to the subject matter of this thread. What someone is wearing is never an excuse for unwanted touching or comments to them. You can obviously say to your mate “ah the hack of your one there” but nothing gives anyone the right to say something actually to the girl just because she’s wearing whatever.

This is absolutely correct. In fact, I had quite a novel-scenario debate on Friday night with my flatmate -- a mid 20s French girl with a fairly liberal view on sex -- where she described some very scantily-clad girls stumbling down Camden Street as 'sluts'. I challenged her on it, pointing out that all things are relative and, from the perspective of (say) a fundamentalist Muslim in a Sharia law-based society, pretty much all Irish women dress like 'sluts' if they expose any skin at all!

We really really need to move away from the conversation on what women wear. As I have said before on this thread, wearing a miniskirt and a boob tube is not an act of direct self-endangerment and there is therefore no reason for any woman to suppress her sense of fashion, even if the perceived suggestion of her outfit is that she is sexually promiscuous. It is her right and perfectly in line with the values of our increasingly progressive country to dress as she wants within the law.

skearnsot wrote: »

I’m NOT SAYING THEY ARE ASKING FOR TROUBLE before the feminazi brigade start spewing about rights and equality etc BUUUUUUT

What an appalling attitude.

Ironically it's more insulting to men than to women.

Hopefully it's just trolling. Bit embarrassing that people have thanked this post though.

skearnsot wrote: »

fact of life we all give off signals -

Would that be the 'rape me ' signal?

Baron de Charlus wrote: »

There seems to be a lot of confusion about what's happened here. People seem to think that by sacking them, the IRFU is saying they're guilty of rape after the court found them not guilty. That's not the case.

I don't believe anyone has suggested the IRFU sacking them is any indication of a belief in guilt. It is very clear the IRFU sacked them because of the mob mentality and the risk of sponsor loss.

Their conduct was appalling and they've admitted as much in their statements after the case. That's why they were let go.

People seem to be forgetting that PJ sent a single message, along the lines of "there was plenty of spit". Hardly material worthy of the condemnation aimed primarily at him. Oldings messages were a bit more telling and came across as extremely immature. Gilroys were the worst.....and he only got a suspension. Sound like justice?

meeeeh wrote: »

Oh come on you will get a local druggie who gets convicted for peddling drugs and petty theft to pay the bill for prosecution? I'd like to see that.

Also if state has to pay for top defence it will rack up legal fees even more, do you want your taxes to pay for an army of Kinnahan solicitors?

I believe I already covered that when I said

goz83 wrote: »

I also would be in favour of a convicted person being billed for the prosecution costs and where they cant afford it, they can work off the debt to society in other ways.

blanch152 wrote: »

It is disturbing that non-criminal private behaviour outside their job can result in someone losing their job.

But it got into the public domain. That's the problem-the guys even admitted they screwed up. And it's not the sex acts, it's the whatsapp messages, the undisputed claims that the girl was bleeding and sent away, and the heavy drinking-which affects performance on the pitch. (A tennis player, last year I believe, got a rollicking for going on a session the a day or two before a tennis match. He had to drop out of the match, claiming injury-but it was later revealed he was hung over).

Top players have to watch themselves both in terms of diet and even alcohol consumption.

Also, the question of 'who's blood' was the photoshopped blood (never answered)-lead to more questions. 23 drinks in one night is not professional behaviour.

Some deleted messages-which many have 'guessed' as to what it might have been about-illegal activities and whatnot also raised questions.

It's funny, a few weeks back, people who supported these guys were like 'when the reporting ban is lifted, the truth will come out and they'll be redeemed'. The ban was lifted-more bad-s*** got out...and people are still trying to say it was about the sex. No, it wasn't.

A certain Dublin footballer hasn't played in several months because of off the pitch and on the pitch temper problems. Nobody's calling for his return, yet people somehow think the two boys are 'victims'.

blanch152 wrote: »

That suggests that the IRFU knows they are wrong to sack them, but are bowing to the power of sponsors and social media mobs. Not a good day.

It suggests nothing of the sort. It's quite normal to pay people off to get rid of them. Happens all the time.
Cleaner and quicker.

blanch152 wrote: »

From the reports, it seems they were more or less paid off their full contractual entitlements out to 2019.

That suggests that the IRFU knows they are wrong to sack them, but are bowing to the power of sponsors and social media mobs. Not a good day.

which reports suggested they were paid off to the end of next season?

Omackeral wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I like men...outside Ireland. Very happy where I am right now

But if they’re not all misogynistic rapists wherever you are (cloud cuckoo land would by my guess btw) why did you feel the need to wait outside your co-worker’s place in a place outside Ireland, where the men know how to treat women.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I noticed today that I did something different because of this thread. My colleague asked to go for a walk with me today, to a river.

On the way he asked to stop at his appartment to pick up something. I said, ok, I will wait for you outside. And I did.

I realise, especially after reading some of the comments on this thread, "she shouldnt have gone to his house" etc., that I am not safe going into a man's appartment, and that I must protect myself.

Unless you’re telling porkies...

Omackeral wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I like men...outside Ireland. Very happy where I am right now

But if they’re not all misogynistic rapists wherever you are (cloud cuckoo land would by my guess btw) why did you feel the need to wait outside your co-worker’s place in a place outside Ireland, where the men know how to treat women.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

I noticed today that I did something different because of this thread. My colleague asked to go for a walk with me today, to a river.

On the way he asked to stop at his appartment to pick up something. I said, ok, I will wait for you outside. And I did.

I realise, especially after reading some of the comments on this thread, "she shouldnt have gone to his house" etc., that I am not safe going into a man's appartment, and that I must protect myself.

Unless you’re telling porkies...

No I am very happy. 
But I have learned from this thread to protect myself more. No harm in that

Squatter wrote: »

An alternative scenario is that if the "top shaggers" had decided to go to court to contest the decision the case might have dragged on for a number of years and cost the IRFU a significant sum as well as keeping the case alive in the media; it would also have affected the players' chances of obtaining alternative employment before the end of their IRFU contracts. So, all in all, there would probably have been no real winners at the end of the day.

Hence the speedy exit was probably the most pragmatic option for both sides.

No. That would then be compensation
They have bought out their contracts which means they were not in breach. Probably a bit on top too as an inducement.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

No I am very happy. 
But I have learned from this thread to protect myself more. No harm in that

Ok but be careful walking down by the river with men, some of them may have Irish heritage.

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

He was found guilty of assault, admitted guilt and apologised to the victim. He was thus spared a jail sentence. Was meant to pay compo, still hasn't-and is currently being pursued for it by the victim. That's been covered in the papers.

Things got quiet for him, frankly. He was listed as starting in the most recent Dublin game-never made it onto the pitch. Very odd.

He wasn't listed as starting in the most recent Dublin game - that was a club game.

The rest of your post refers to issues that were dealt with quite some time ago.

facehugger99 wrote: »

It suggests nothing of the sort. It's quite normal to pay people off to get rid of them. Happens all the time.
Cleaner and quicker.

It looks more to me that it's a benefit to everyone to just cancel and payoff the contract and let them join a team somewhere else till all this carry-on blow's over. They ain't no saint's but the biggest problem I can see with all this is Cancer media is turning too many people in raving loony idiots with no cop on.

There's also a severe skewed though that all men are predators and all women are victims which is a load of bollocks. For ever man looking for their hole there's equally a woman looking for their pole. What's worse is that simple accusations can be used to destroy a person rather than waiting for an actual court to decide that and that's not something I like either.

I swear Einstein was right to say the one constant in the universe is Human Stupidity.

skearnsot wrote: »

I would also like to say that the way young women dress (or forget to dress) is absolutely appalling! I’m NOT SAYING THEY ARE ASKING FOR TROUBLE before the feminazi brigade start spewing about rights and equality etc BUUUUUUT if they are going out with their wares on display like it or not they’re sending a message albeit unconsciously!! If men went out so scantily clad one thinks they’d be done for indecent exposure
Add that to drink & drugs etc on both sides - yikes

What about all those blokes going topless in the summer? None of them get done for indecent exposure do they? You sound like somebody from the 1960's

Girls and women should be able to wear whatever the f*ck they like without being held responsible for the "unconscious messages" dirty-minded people think they're sending. What "wares" are "on display" anyway-unless you think of the female body as a commodity. Jesus, this thread is so depressing.
Women who think sexual violence is not justifiable by the amount a victim has had to drink or the shortness of her skirt or low-cut of her top are labelled "feminazis"- and by other women too.
Keep drinking the kool aid ladies and get back into the kitchen and make some more when you're done. Keep your daughters in line by telling them they're somewhat responsible if anyone attacks them.

I don't know exactly what Jackson and co did that night, they didn't seem to know themselves a there were conflicting stories yet nobody has called them out for behaving irresponsibly by removing items of clothing, their lack of judgement in being in the circumstances where they could be accused of rape and their extreme alcohol use. The type of blind support they are getting here is scary.