Louise O'Neill on manned mission to Mars: "Why not go to Venus?" (MOD Warning post 1)

pjohnson

Piers Morgan and Louise O'Neill in the same room for 30+ seconds would surely cause Trump and Jung Un to collectively launch the nukes at said room.

BPKS

BUMP

Zulu

BPKS wrote: »

BUMP

no

padd b1975

I suspect she's screaming loudly just about now....

meeeeh

Are some of you triggered in advance now?

Will I Am Not

Get ready everybody... she’s about to tweet something stupid...

pjohnson

meeeeh wrote: »

Are some of you triggered in advance now?

I think its only the LON heads that get triggered. I just find her madness kinda hilarious as I imagine most do.

Lads, for fúck sake..this is hardly something to be making stupid points about..

KrustyUCC

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/978959687432499201?s=20

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/978960698037424128?s=20

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/978959824431001603?s=20

Her thoughts on the verdict

Doesn't seem to matter that the lads were found not guilty unaminously

pjohnson

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Lads, for fúck sake..this is hardly something to be making stupid points about..

Tell LON

Kyta

KrustyUCC wrote: »

Doesn't seem to matter that the lads were found not guilty unaminously

Sure they're men, they must be guilty.
In her world men = guilty, women = innocent.
It's a very simple formula which could save millions in lawyer costs and court time.

Bunny Colvin

KrustyUCC wrote: »

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/978959687432499201?s=20

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/978960698037424128?s=20

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/978959824431001603?s=20

Her thoughts on the verdict

Doesn't seem to matter that the lads were found not guilty unaminously

They're innocent Louise. You'll just have to deal with that.

backspin.

KrustyUCC wrote: »

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/978959687432499201?s=20

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/978960698037424128?s=20

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/978959824431001603?s=20

Her thoughts on the verdict

Doesn't seem to matter that the lads were found not guilty unaminously

Her attitude is part of the problem. If she automatically believes the women then where does that leave innocent men. The likes of her are creating an us and them situation.

Water John

Discussed in my house, the other day, all agreed, male and female that, the jury couldn't find them guilty. All conceding that it didn't look good for them, at the start of the trial.

retro:electro

Who gives a **** about what she thinks

optogirl

retro:electro wrote: »

Who gives a **** about what she thinks

A lot of people on boards by the looks of it - rubbing their knees with glee in anticipation of denigrating her from a height for tweeting her opinion on this or any subject.

Boom_Bap

The one thing that I do agree on with what she says is that no person who is making a claim of being raped should be subjected to 8 days of questioning on the stand.
I know it breaks down to 2 days for each cross examination, but there should be measures put in place to prevent such lengthy questioning.

selectamatic

Boom_Bap wrote: »

The one thing that I do agree on with what she says is that no person who is making a claim of being raped should be subjected to 8 days of questioning on the stand.
I know it breaks down to 2 days for each cross examination, but there should be measures put in place to prevent such lengthy questioning.

I'd like to see the breakdown of actual hours she spent under questioning though minus breaks.

iirc she was behind a screen, could only be questioned for an hour at a time before taking a break and could also take breaks during difficult lines of questioning at her discretion.

So that in itself would certainly drag proceedings out. Add to that the fact that it had to be done 4 times and it's easy eat up the days.

endacl

optogirl wrote: »

A lot of people on boards by the looks of it - rubbing their knees with glee in anticipation of denigrating her from a height for tweeting her opinion on this or any subject.

Ah, sure she's a bit o' craic. Nobody really takes her seriously.

cantdecide

optogirl wrote: »

A lot of people on boards by the looks of it - rubbing their knees with glee in anticipation of denigrating her from a height for tweeting her opinion on this or any subject.

Irony, no??

Boom_Bap

selectamatic wrote: »

I'd like to see the breakdown of actual hours she spent under questioning though minus breaks.

iirc she was behind a screen, could only be questioned for an hour at a time before taking a break and could also take breaks during difficult lines of questioning at her discretion.

So that in itself would certainly drag proceedings out. Add to that the fact that it had to be done 4 times and it's easy eat up the days.

But it's still 8 days where she had to climb up there and be questioned.

That should never happen in any trial of this nature going forward and there should be changes made in the judicial systems to ensure it doesn't.

xtal191

Jaysus some of the the replies to her tweets, theres some ****ed up people out there.

selectamatic

Boom_Bap wrote: »

But it's still 8 days where she had to climb up there and be questioned.

That should never happen in any trial of this nature going forward and there should be changes made in the judicial systems to ensure it doesn't.

8 days sounds like alot but if it equates to a normal amount of hours actually under questioning then it's a non issue.

As I said the measures put in place did not lend themselves to a quick process.

retro:electro

8 days is a hell of a lot but at the same time when you’re accusing someone of a crime, and a life changing label attached for life- I think it’s important to be a thorough as possible.
8 days on the stand vs a few years in jail for a crime you didn’t commit?
It’s not pleasant but it has to be done.

Boom_Bap

retro:electro wrote: »

8 days is a hell of a lot but at the same time when you’re accusing someone of a crime, and a life changing label attached for life- I think it’s important to be a thorough as possible.
8 days on the stand vs a few years in jail for a crime you didn’t commit?
It’s not pleasant but it has to be done.

Agreed that getting to the truth is essential....but doing it 4 times is too much.

freshpopcorn

I was expecting this result in the trial from I heard in the media. However I think Louise would never have accepted a not guilty verdict not matter what came out in court.

givyjoe

Boom_Bap wrote: »

Agreed that getting to the truth is essential....but doing it 4 times is too much.

4 defendants is the reason. Surely it's 'better' than 4 separate trials? Also completely impractical from impartial/blind jury POV if the second, third and fourth trial are preceded by a high profile first case.

freshpopcorn

I wonder will she attend?

https://www.facebook.com/events/324273031429192/?active_tab=discussion

Boom_Bap

givyjoe wrote: »

4 defendants is the reason. Surely it's 'better' than 4 separate trials? Also completely impractical from impartial/blind jury POV if the second, third and fourth trial are preceded by a high profile first case.

I understand the reason. What I'm saying is that there needs to be a better approach.

Imagine having being raped and it's the only thing that you are talking about and being questioned about, covering the same thing, for 8 days. If there were 5 people involved, 10 days, 8 people, 16 days... that's harrowing stuff and as LON says would be a deterrent to someone coming forward to go to trial.

Its hard enough talking about a rape once.

givyjoe

Boom_Bap wrote: »

I understand the reason. What I'm saying is that there needs to be a better approach.

Imagine having being raped and it's the only thing that you are talking about and being questioned about, covering the same thing, for 8 days. If there were 5 people involved, 10 days, 8 people, 16 days... that's harrowing stuff and as LON says would be a deterrent to someone coming forward to go to trial.

Its hard enough talking about a rape once.

But what is the alternative? This a deterrent to ANY victim of ANY crime?