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

meeeeh

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I wonder will she face similar attitudes in finding work? After all, she was proven to be unreliable as a witness. Honesty/trust being something that most employers look in a professional employee.

Somehow I doubt it. The degree of double standards regarding the genders is just... meh!

No she won't. But that is normal, in sport you are only worth as much as your name is worth commercially. That means skills plus ability to sell jerseys or sponsor products. It might be unfair because trial was so public but those things are never decided just by player's quality. Personally I dislike the idea that sports people should be rolemodels but commercial side can't be ignored. If he can't make money for the club or even looses them money he is worthless.

It's simple maths and gender or anything else is completely irrelevant. I would assume the other two defendants will be a lot less affected by the the trial.

Sleepy

meeeeh wrote: »

You really think any sponsor will touch him? Do you think Ulster Rugby sponsors will be delighted to have him in the team? If you want him in the team better start organising money collections because I can't see too many companies queuing to pay his wages.

I'd say they'll be quietly released from their contracts to go play in France tbh.

valoren

Kudos on the thread title change

Yer Da sells Avon

soiseztomabel wrote: »

You do really sound gutted though

Oh.

Will I Am Not

Sorry for the cross thread posting but...

_Dara_ wrote: »

This tweet is disturbing. People are losing the plot. I replied to the tweet (in a civil manner) but I'm not expecting a response.

You were very vocal on this thread about her irrelevance but this is exactly the sort of thing that people like LON are influencing.

fattymuatty

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

I don't get all this talk about them treating her like dirt? I'm going to be a little explicit here, so look away if easily offended.

By all accounts this girl wasn't very drunk and so all the nonsense of her being taking advantage of in that regard is baloney. She was the one who beckoned the lads into the room and starting blowing them. She instigated the threesome. Are we all so shocked at a female taking part in group sex that we have to demonize the men involved as a matter of course?

If it's about how they spoke about her in those texts the next day, well first of all they are lads in their early to mid 20's and that's hardly a demographic known for their subtlety but I can assure you, many women are just as crass about men the morning after as young men are about women. Have a mate who works on the Dublin Peddle Tours and the stuff he tells me that he hears of a Saturday or Sunday afternoon about hen night antics the night before (and in just as a crass a fashion - spit roasting talk the least of it) would leave you in no doubt that women can be as bad as men when it comes to that kind of stuff.

I'm not saying these lads are gents or role models or anything, but I do think people are overdoing it a little when speaking of them as scumbags and what not and if anything it all just further cements why we really should have anonymity for those accused in these cases as it's quite clear that even if you are found not-guilty, you'll still yet most likely be seen in a negative light henceforth regardless.

Do you honestly think that women would have sex so rough with a man that they leave him bleeding through his jeans and sobbing. Then they would sit around and joke about it the next day? You think people are 'overdoing it' when they speak of them as scumbags?

I think anyone who leaves someone bleeding through their clothes and sobbing after sex deserves to be seen in a negative light, never mind someone who does it and then jokes and boasts about it.

HandsomeBob

What in the holy ****. That tweet.....my god.

Vladimir Poontang

It's hate speech

freshpopcorn

fattymuatty wrote: »

Do you honestly think women would have sex so rough with a man that they leave him bleeding through his jeans and sobbing would sit around and joke about it the next day? You think people are 'overdoing it' when they speak of them as scumbags?

I think anyone who leaves someone bleeding through their clothes and sobbing after sex deserves to be seen in a negative light, never mind someone who does it and then jokes and boasts about it.

I went to college with a girl. Got on well with her however what she wanted in the bedroom department was way to much for me. She'd have being up for anything with more than one person. The language she'd use in text would have also being similar.
The media would lead you to believe that a woman would never act like this. Fun thing is she lives very close to somebody who's often mentioned in the thread.

freshpopcorn

HandsomeBob wrote: »

What in the holy ****. That tweet.....my god.

That opinion does exist. You just have to hope they don't end up on a jury.

Ipso

freshpopcorn wrote: »

That opinion does exist. You just have to hope they don't end up on a jury.

But the tweet is on the web forever and could be used against her to show she is impartial.

endacl

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

It's hate speech

It's not really. It's nonsense, and would be recognised as nonsense outside of the echo chamber. It's easy to come out with that stuff online, where other idiots will cheer you on and you can block dissenting opinion. Not so much in the real world where you might have to elaborate on your statement in less that 280 characters. Where you might not be in a binary shouting match. Where you might be met with somebody (god forbid, perhaps even a nice reasonable man), who replies,"but you know me. You've known me for ages. We're friends, and I like and respect you. I'm a decent person. What if it were me?"

^^
I couldn't have expressed that thought on twitter.

markodaly

You know the Nazi's (godwining the thread) had the same philosophy about cleansing Europe from Jewish blood, to them it was better to kill off those with very little Jewish blood in them in case it remained to infect the stock of European/Aryan blood.

This is the Nth degree of this cultish talk these feminists harp on about.

Ubbquittious

Anyone else wondering what an Ermahgherd is?

Ronaldinho

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Anyone else wondering what an Ermahgherd is?

Oh my God???

Sweetemotion

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Anyone else wondering what an Ermahgherd is?

O my God?

markodaly

markodaly wrote: »

Well, she said it there that 'they were found not guilty, which is not the same as innocent'. Hint hint, they actually did it.

That alone is a good case for defamation. The examiner is playing loose here.

The lads should bury these rags. Not guilty = Not guilty = case closed. Over. Done.

Wibbs

Wibbs wrote: »

Yep, the "patriarchy" again. Joke is juries with a majority of women are less likely to convict a man of rape and it seems less likely to believe the woman. This is seen throughout the world too. Here's an Irish study into it.

One of the research strands focused on a theory that the frequency of a male bias in rape juries contributed to the extremely low conviction rates for sex crimes.
Law lecturer Conor Hanly, giving his personal assessment of the preliminary results, said the results show this has no grounding in fact.

“The most striking result is the fact that not one of the 20 female dominated juries in a six-year period convicted a defendant of rape.

“This compares with a conviction rate of 25% among male dominated juries and 16% among juries with equal numbers of male and female jurors.

“Contrary to what social science research would lead us to expect, it would seem that female dominated juries are less sympathetic to rape complainants than are their male colleagues,” he said.

Turns out those damned sexist men are more sympathetic to rape victims and the more women there are on a jury the less likely a guilty of rape verdict will be handed down . So Mzzz O'Neill in your "feminist" matriarchal paradise it seems fewer rapists would end up in gaol. Then again no doubt that's still the patriarchy's fault.

Dear oh dear oh dear.....Just what will the libtards do now that you have presented them with hard facts???? I hope they are near their safe spaces.

Pac1Man

Pac1Man wrote: »

Incredible how it is allowed in a legit paper.

This rag needs to be shut the fúck down. No integrity whatsoever.

pleas advice

Ubbquittious wrote: »

Anyone else wondering what an Ermahgherd is?

link

RabbleRouser2k

Only LON could use an already horrific event to promote her books, her documentary, and rehash old crap statements.

The woman who didn't wanna listen to a female solicitor tell her rape trials require 'proof' is now spouting 'I believe her'.
I doubt the verdict (again, this is me)-but whatever the truth, the four guys in question were scumbags.

What they weren't, however, were trying to peddle their wares while discussing a highly sensitive case. She even mentioned 'Whatsapp'-why would she try to advertise that, in light of the messages 'shared' on the app by the 4 guys?

Two of the guys are already suing the Beeb-she'd want to be careful, she could easily land herself in hot water. Financially, I mean-don't want her taking that as a 'rape' threat.

RabbleRouser2k

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Only LON could use an already horrific event to promote her books, her documentary, and rehash old crap statements.

The woman who didn't wanna listen to a female solicitor tell her rape trials require 'proof' is now spouting 'I believe her'.
I doubt the verdict (again, this is me)-but whatever the truth, the four guys in question were scumbags.

What they weren't, however, were trying to peddle their wares while discussing a highly sensitive case. She even mentioned 'Whatsapp'-why would she try to advertise that, in light of the messages 'shared' on the app by the 4 guys?

Two of the guys are already suing the Beeb-she'd want to be careful, she could easily land herself in hot water. Financially, I mean-don't want her taking that as a 'rape' threat.

If she was sued to the point she had to eat grass from the side of the road it would serve her right. No harm to see the British brainwashing corporation get sued too. These idiots are too dumb and entitled to just go away though

RabbleRouser2k

Deleted User wrote: »

If she was sued to the point she had to eat grass from the side of the road it would serve her right. No harm to see the British brainwashing corporation get sued too. These idiots are too dumb and entitled to just go away though

I was worried about TV3's coverage-in that Laura Hogan's twitter has 'feminist' written underneath it.

Tbf, her twitter feed seems rational, I think.

She certainly wasn't as obsessed with the case as others-outside of her job I mean.

Yer Da sells Avon

Deleted User wrote: »

If she was sued to the point she had to eat grass from the side of the road it would serve her right. No harm to see the British brainwashing corporation get sued too. These idiots are too dumb and entitled to just go away though

Jim Bob Scratcher

I hope poor louise is in her safe space at the moment, far away from the big scary men of Ireland

garbo speaks

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Two of the guys are already suing the Beeb-she'd want to be careful, she could easily land herself in hot water.

I would love if Louise was taken to court on defamation or libel charges based on the vitriolic tripe she spouts. I bet she'd want her fair trial then, though. Having said that however, I'm sure her deluded followers would turn her the Irish Rosa Parks online.

freshpopcorn

garbo speaks wrote: »

I would love if Louise was taken to court on defamation or libel charges based on the vitriolic tripe she spouts. I bet she'd want her fair trial then, though. Having said that however, I'm sure her deluded followers would turn her the Irish Rosa Parks online.

Hashtags at the ready!

drugstore cowboy

garbo speaks wrote: »

I would love if Louise was taken to court on defamation or libel charges based on the vitriolic tripe she spouts. I bet she'd want her fair trial then, though. Having said that however, I'm sure her deluded followers would turn her the Irish Rosa Parks online.

she can barely get out of bed

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/979658404057833472

For Forks Sake

garbo speaks wrote: »

I would love if Louise was taken to court on defamation or libel charges based on the vitriolic tripe she spouts. I bet she'd want her fair trial then, though. Having said that however, I'm sure her deluded followers would turn her the Irish Rosa Parks online.

She may get her day out yet.

Jackson to sue Labour senator over alleged defamatory tweet

The Rape of Lucretia

drugstore cowboy wrote: »

she can barely get out of bed

https://twitter.com/oneilllo/status/979658404057833472

I am not sure why she is taking it quote so hard. Jackson was good, but Carbery has come on very well in the meantime, and possibly has a higher ceiling. Byrne is capable backup as well. The damage from this case may not turn out be that harmful, even though the price Jackson is paying personally if not involved anymore is high and harsh. Louise, have you seen Carbery play ? Relax.