Waterford FC Thread

WFC1930

iseegirls wrote: »

Thank god there is a match tonight. Hoping for 3 points and not let Bohemians get cemented into that 3rd spot.

Now back to football. Big chance tonight, despite the squad being down to the bare bones I feel weirdly confident.

alta stare

WFC1930 wrote: »

Now back to football. Big chance tonight, despite the squad being down to the bare bones I feel weirdly confident.

Only because Bohs are widely inconsistent

We badly need a win.

Ballso

WFC1930 wrote: »

Jesus Christ haha!

Give up mate, you’re gonna lose I guarantee you.

All this is explained and after explanation is giving out you give out about different things again. Think you need to research what the quotes in the file actually mean. And after you do that read the rest of the file in it’s entirety. Selective reading...

What's explained?

The sex offenders register is not public. If the charges were expunged under the probation act how were they used in the judgement last week? If this were a simple case of statutory rape, why is there a sexual assault conviction as well as an attempted defilement conviction?

You don't have any answers or explanations pal, just more lies.

Johnboy1951

If this were a simple case of statutory rape

There is no such offence as "statutory rape" in this jurisdiction as far as I am aware.

Ballso

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

There is no such offence as "statutory rape" in this jurisdiction as far as I am aware.

Indeed, the pertinent legislation is under 'attempted defilement' as I understand it.

WFC1930

alta stare wrote: »

Only because Bohs are widely inconsistent

We badly need a win.

A win would have us in a good spot, with all these games in hand we’ve a really good chance and getting up and amongst the euro spots. We need to get our backside into gear and start performing to our potential. Fingers crossed.

killbillvol2

WFC1930 wrote: »

A win would have us in a good spot, with all these games in hand we’ve a really good chance and getting up and amongst the euro spots. We need to get our backside into gear and start performing to our potential. Fingers crossed.

I love your optimism but with the squad threadbare we're going to be moving in the opposite direction I fear. We're lucky the bottom two are so poor or we'd be in a relegation scrap by the end of the season.

alta stare

WFC1930 wrote: »

A win would have us in a good spot, with all these games in hand we’ve a really good chance and getting up and amongst the euro spots. We need to get our backside into gear and start performing to our potential. Fingers crossed.

Hopefully we get a win. A strong run would be very much welcome.

JeffKenna

Gardner wrote: »

JeffKenna wrote: »

I have done my own research and it makes me sick to my stomach.

And just and FYI, I also believe that people who defend gang rape are as bad.

I'd give WFC1930 is due on this. I think he has explained himself very well and for you to say he gang raped a girl is simply not true. my understanding of the court document is in line with WFC1930. if you believe different, please quote from the document and don't use manufactured quotes from a far right website.

i think the major problem in all this is the wording and vocabulary of the court document. The less educated that is a vast majority of posters on this forum draw about 100 different conclusions from what they have read. they sensationalise it and believe what they want to believe

Anything I have seen from WFC1930 on this is unsubstantiated and quite frankly it's concerning that he wants to shut down on debate on it. He's making claims left, right and centre without any source or backup.

As to your comment on alt right websites I'm not even going to go there. I like most others have heard the rumours about his tweets and jokes regarding the raping white girls but we'll leave that aside.

Now, from the court document:
As the applicant acknowledges in an affidavit that he swore in these proceedings on 27 October 2017, he was one of six persons convicted of sexual offences arising out of various incidents involving the same 14-year-old complainant that occurred in February and March 2010, when the applicant was 16 years old.

I'm not sure what else you want? The child was 14 and he has been convicted of sexual defliment (statutory rape) along with 2 other people during the same incident.

alta stare

JeffKenna wrote: »

Anything I have seen from WFC1930 on this is unsubstantiated and quite frankly it's concerning that he wants to shut down on debate on it. He's making claims left, right and centre without any source or backup.

As to your comment on alt right websites I'm not even going to go there. I like most others have heard the rumours about his tweets and jokes regarding the raping white girls but we'll leave that aside.

Now, from the court document:
As the applicant acknowledges in an affidavit that he swore in these proceedings on 27 October 2017, he was one of six persons convicted of sexual offences arising out of various incidents involving the same 14-year-old complainant that occurred in February and March 2010, when the applicant was 16 years old.

I'm not sure what else you want? The child was 14 and he has been convicted of sexual defliment (statutory rape) along with 2 other people during the same incident.

The mad thing is though regarding statutory rape, a person can be tried for statutory rape even if it was consensual and the person was under 17 as the parents can be the ones who lodge a complaint even if it they knew it was consensual.

I dont condone what Akinade and his friends done and lets be fair i bet neither does WFC1930 but the witch hunt going on here over Akinade by some posters is a bit much given most of them never bothered to read anything regarding the case bar the headlines. People making up things left right and centre without a back up source....as you say.

When this first came across this very thread after he signed the hysterics over it by some misinformed posters was crazy.

Akinade was clearly not seen as a threat to anyone therefore the club had no problem in signing him and involving him in activities involving minors. Im sure if there was any doubt then they would not of done such things.

The courts decided not to incarcerate him......why???? Because they saw fit not too. If he was as bad as some people made out he wouldnt of not stepped foot outside a jail for a few years.

Any present or future case against him will of always had refered back to his previous grievances as that is how the courts and solicitors operate. If i had previous convictions just say for driving and i ended up in court again for something else then my previous convictions would be brought up. The fact his previous case was mentioned doesnt mean he was deported for that case alone which some posters seem to think he was.

JeffKenna

alta stare wrote: »

JeffKenna wrote: »

Anything I have seen from WFC1930 on this is unsubstantiated and quite frankly it's concerning that he wants to shut down on debate on it. He's making claims left, right and centre without any source or backup.

As to your comment on alt right websites I'm not even going to go there. I like most others have heard the rumours about his tweets and jokes regarding the raping white girls but we'll leave that aside.

Now, from the court document:
As the applicant acknowledges in an affidavit that he swore in these proceedings on 27 October 2017, he was one of six persons convicted of sexual offences arising out of various incidents involving the same 14-year-old complainant that occurred in February and March 2010, when the applicant was 16 years old.

I'm not sure what else you want? The child was 14 and he has been convicted of sexual defliment (statutory rape) along with 2 other people during the same incident.

The mad thing is though regarding statutory rape, a person can be tried for statutory rape even if it was consensual and the person was under 17 as the parents can be the ones who lodge a complaint even if it they knew it was consensual.

I dont condone what Akinade and his friends done and lets be fair i bet neither does WFC1930 but the witch hunt going on here over Akinade by some posters is a bit much given most of them never bothered to read anything regarding the case bar the headlines. People making up things left right and centre without a back up source....as you say.

When this first came across this very thread after he signed the hysterics over it by some misinformed posters was crazy.

Akinade was clearly not seen as a threat to anyone therefore the club had no problem in signing him and involving him in activities involving minors. Im sure if there was any doubt then they would not of done such things.

The courts decided not to incarcerate him......why???? Because they saw fit not too. If he was as bad as some people made out he wouldnt of not stepped foot outside a jail for a few years.

Any present or future case against him will of always had refered back to his previous grievances as that is how the courts and solicitors operate. If i had previous convictions just say for driving and i ended up in court again for something else then my previous convictions would be brought up. The fact his previous case was mentioned doesnt mean he was deported for that case alone which some posters seem to think he was.

It's a big issue with the legal system in general the incarceration of youths. The length of time Boy A and B receive will be very interesting, however that's a very different topic.

I'm not sure why you think he wasn't deported over this case. You hardly think it's to do with a driving conviction do you?

Anyway, the legal system has spoken. While Waterford FC had no problem involving him with minors I'm glad that option has now been taken away because I certainly think that's not where a person with a sexual offense should be.

alta stare

JeffKenna wrote: »

It's a big issue with the legal system in general the incarceration of youths. The length of time Boy A and B receive will be very interesting, however that's a very different topic.

I'm not sure why you think he wasn't deported over this case. You hardly think it's to do with a driving conviction do you?

Anyway, the legal system has spoken. While Waterford FC had no problem involving him with minors I'm glad that option has now been taken away because I certainly think that's not where a person with a sexual offense should be.

Where does it say he was deported because of the case? Why wasnt he deported before now? It makes no sense he would suddenly be deported over that case alone.

sonic85

God damn it I forgot the rescheduled game with Bohs was tonight had tickets to it and all. Balls anyway

JeffKenna

alta stare wrote: »

JeffKenna wrote: »

It's a big issue with the legal system in general the incarceration of youths. The length of time Boy A and B receive will be very interesting, however that's a very different topic.

I'm not sure why you think he wasn't deported over this case. You hardly think it's to do with a driving conviction do you?

Anyway, the legal system has spoken. While Waterford FC had no problem involving him with minors I'm glad that option has now been taken away because I certainly think that's not where a person with a sexual offense should be.

Where does it say he was deported because of the case? Why wasnt he deported before now? It makes no sense he would suddenly be deported over that case alone.

Presumption on my part, I naturally thought a sexual conviction would lead to a deportation?

alta stare

JeffKenna wrote: »

Presumption on my part, I naturally thought a sexual conviction would lead to a deportation?

Even after a few years have passed?

JeffKenna

alta stare wrote: »

JeffKenna wrote: »

Presumption on my part, I naturally thought a sexual conviction would lead to a deportation?

Even after a few years have passed?

Sur the trial took 4 years from the incident. Once a deportation order is issued it can be contested so that could take another few years easily I would imagine?

alta stare

JeffKenna wrote: »

Sur the trial took 4 years from the incident. Once a deportation order is issued it can be contested so that could take another few years easily I would imagine?

But who said anyone contested it?

Who said there was a case to contest?

Where does it say he got deported because of his case?

Surely he would be deported very quickly if he was deemed a danger. Again if he was deemed a danger he would of at least went to jail.

Again i have to say it due to the ignorance of some posters that i do not condone what he did but the facts are the courts concluded through statements and evidence that the judgement passed was appropriate for him and those involved. You or I may or may not agree with it but You, I or most people do not know the exact details of the case so we for the most part can only speculate. Unfortunately there are some wild assumptions and mis conceptions being thrown around on this site/forum/thread which are only feeding the select posters who thrive on hysterics.

JeffKenna

alta stare wrote: »

JeffKenna wrote: »

Sur the trial took 4 years from the incident. Once a deportation order is issued it can be contested so that could take another few years easily I would imagine?

But who said anyone contested it?

Who said there was a case to contest?

Where does it say he got deported because of his case?

Surely he would be deported very quickly if he was deemed a danger. Again if he was deemed a danger he would of at least went to jail.

Again i have to say it due to the ignorance of some posters that i do not condone what he did but the facts are the courts concluded through statements and evidence that the judgement passed was appropriate for him and those involved. You or I may or may not agree with it but You, I or most people do not know the exact details of the case so we for the most part can only speculate. Unfortunately there are some wild assumptions and mis conceptions being thrown around on this site/forum/thread which are only feeding the select posters who thrive on hysterics.

Have you read the court order? Points 3, 4 and 10 answer your questions.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/768d83be24938e1180256ef30048ca51/742f5c6a7cadd0dd80258412004e5c63?OpenDocument&fbclid=IwAR1n3_7GabzNcEb7rxGQt0kpvtJpx8xkZ9zq-5AoLw3PcdLBbuQMp7h36A0

alta stare

JeffKenna wrote: »

Have you read the court order? Points 3, 4 and 10 answer your questions.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/768d83be24938e1180256ef30048ca51/742f5c6a7cadd0dd80258412004e5c63?OpenDocument&fbclid=IwAR1n3_7GabzNcEb7rxGQt0kpvtJpx8xkZ9zq-5AoLw3PcdLBbuQMp7h36A0

That link doesnt work.

JeffKenna

alta stare wrote: »

JeffKenna wrote: »

Have you read the court order? Points 3, 4 and 10 answer your questions.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/768d83be24938e1180256ef30048ca51/742f5c6a7cadd0dd80258412004e5c63?OpenDocument&fbclid=IwAR1n3_7GabzNcEb7rxGQt0kpvtJpx8xkZ9zq-5AoLw3PcdLBbuQMp7h36A0

That link doesnt work.

It works when I click on it so dunno what's wrong.

2017 444 JR is the high court number so if you go to courts.ie and search by that it should show up

alta stare

JeffKenna wrote: »

It works when I click on it so dunno what's wrong.

2017 444 JR is the high court number so if you go to courts.ie and search by that it should show up

It worked when i quoted your post.

Paragraph 32 is interesting. It says his motoring offences were taken into account. So It would appear to me that the decision to deport him wasnt soley based on his conviction for sexual offences although it is what they recommended first which they say was revoked the first time around.

PTH2009

**** it anyway 2-1 loss in injury time

That's curtains for Europe I'd say sadly

Sully

Can we get back to discussing football and not a former player and what he did or did not do. Please. No further discussion on that matter from this point please.

Sully

Sully wrote: »

Can we get back to discussing football and not a former player and what he did or did not do. Please. No further discussion on that matter from this point please.

Next person to ignore this gets removed from the forum.

I understand the points raised but this isn't the place to discuss.

Thanks

alta stare

Sully it is relevant to this thread as he played for Waterford. The thread is anything to do with WFC. The thread isnt just for matters on the pitch.

Also if you are issuing threats as a mod then do what you are supposed to do when acting as a mod....bold your post. You done the same earlier on when directing your opinion at WFC1930 and you done so in a rude manner. Again if you were playing the mod then your post should of been in bold.

You have barely posted here yet you come along now and start going on about bans and the likes and as i have already said none of these threats are bolded as you know ye are instructed to do.

Now by all means go ahead and ban me and claim i ignored a mods instruction but clearly i havent as it appears a mod has not posted within their modding parameters, it was merely you as an ordinary boards user just like the rest of us.

Sully

alta stare wrote: »

Sully it is relevant to this thread as he played for Waterford. The thread is anything to do with WFC. The thread isnt just for matters on the pitch.

Also if you are issuing threats as a mod then do what you are supposed to do when acting as a mod....bold your post. You done the same earlier on when directing your opinion at WFC1930 and you done so in a rude manner. Again if you were playing the mod then your post should of been in bold.

You have barely posted here yet you come along now and start going on about bans and the likes and as i have already said none of these threats are bolded as you know ye are instructed to do.

Now by all means go ahead and ban me and claim i ignored a mods instruction but clearly i havent as it appears a mod has not posted within their modding parameters, it was merely you as an ordinary boards user just like the rest of us.

All I'm hearing is noise against a team of volunteers who keep the site ticking over. When asked to point out posts of concern, more noise and nothing to show for it. Forgive me if I'm appearing rude but not everybody has time to read through the thread. Work with us.

The thread is about the club and the player has since left both club and country. The thread isn't a discussion about what a legal case may or may not mean. I fully understand concerns raised but as moderators we aren't trained to offer legal advise or understand legal rulings. It's evident from the numerous posts here the general public hasn't much a clue either as nobody can agree on what something means.

For that reason and for reason only, I am not opening this site to a potential legal minefield, that specific topic ends in terms of the allegation/ potential outcome of any case.

As for posting in bold, I'm posting from the touch site and it appears not to be actually working.

If you wish to further discuss this, do so by PM. Not here.

Thank You for your understanding

alta stare

Sully wrote: »

All I'm hearing is noise against a team of volunteers who keep the site ticking over. When asked to point out posts of concern, more noise and nothing to show for it. Forgive me if I'm appearing rude but not everybody has time to read through the thread. Work with us.

The thread is about the club and the player has since left both club and country. The thread isn't a discussion about what a legal case may or may not mean. I fully understand concerns raised but as moderators we aren't trained to offer legal advise or understand legal rulings. It's evident from the numerous posts here the general public hasn't much a clue either as nobody can agree on what something means.

For that reason and for reason only, I am not opening this site to a potential legal minefield, that specific topic ends in terms of the allegation/ potential outcome of any case.

As for posting in bold, I'm posting from the touch site and it appears not to be actually working.

If you wish to further discuss this, do so by PM. Not here.

Thank You for your understanding

I understand your position and the position of Boards and i know discussions like this are usually kept to a minimum for legal reasons and that is fair enough. The only posters who are causing potential legal issues here are the ones who are calling him a rapist and the likes so surely it is those who should be warned instead of everyone of us? Surely those who are trying to remain civil should be allowed discuss the case if it warrants it.

I agree with you about no one having a clue about what certain things mean and that is an issue for sure.

As for not posting in bold....if you are on the touch site and your bold is not working then that is fair enough. I wasnt trying to be a d!ck by calling you out on it but if we have abide by rules so do ye and i was merely pointing out that your post as a mod was mute due to it not being in bold. As some mods are very quick to point out, rules are rules...so we all including mods must adhere to them.

I respect the fact that you came back on and addressed my post in a sensible manner and i will respect your request not to engage in the conversation about the case anymore.

PTH2009

Another away loss

3-0 too dundalk with another early own goal

alta stare

PTH2009 wrote: »

Another away loss

3-0 too dundalk with another early own goal

It seems the buzz is gone. If there is no investment next season id be worried we will be in trouble.

Gardner

was at the game last night. poor enough. outclassed all around the field. Hery doesn't want to be here. would be surprised if he doesn't finish out the season with us.