Ulster Team Talk Thread III: Les Miserables SEE MOD WARNING POST #1924 + #2755

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

This post is merely a debate of language and not law. Innocence has a different meaning depending on perspective, they are innocent from the perspective of the law. That protects them from some discrimination, but as long as we act within those protections we are each free to judge their moral innocence if we have reasonable cause.

Well let's be fair, it's a bit of both. Firstly, the law is clear. They are innocent men. That is not debatable because the manner in which society has placed its trust is in that of the courts.

But where does moral innocence stop? The Pandoras box you are opening is huge when you use terms like 'moral innocence'.

I'd be amazed if you weren't pro choice for example. How does that stack up against your moral innocence? At what value do we place morals. How collective are morals?

ixus

Pienar, Jackson, Olding, Payne, Bowe & Piutau in such a short period. That is some loss.

mfceiling

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Northern Ireland's rape/sexual offences prosecution rates lag massively behind the rest of the UK, and conviction rates lag even further behind.

This has been raised in the NI Assembly e.g. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2016-10-17.6.16

In England and Wales there has been a concerted effort to increase prosecution (and consequently conviction) rates on VAWG offences. If there was a recommendation of not to prosecute by the PSNI, I wouldn't take that as evidence of anything. The PSNI seem to make a habit of recommending no prosecution, with the PPSNI frequently not bothering to prosecute even if they received a recommendation to prosecute from the PSNI

Yesterday's Sunday Times.

In the magazine section is an article about men being falsely accused of rape in England.

"Where once the police and criminal justice system were criticised for their treatment of alleged victims - often not believing their stories or subjecting women to heavy handed cross examinations about what they had been drinking, how they dressed and previous relationships - now the pendulum has swung the other way.
When Saunders became head of the CPS in 2013, she promoted a focus on female victims. In rape cases where the complainant is known to have been drunk, Saunders put the onus on men to prove explicit consent. She advised prosecutors to examine alleged rapists previous sexual behaviour and encouraged women to seek advice from a rape counsellor if they woke up in a man's bed with no memory of the previous night".

Mary Aspinall - Miles the barrister suggests pressure on prosecutors is exacerbated by the emotive nature of sexual assaults, impassioned commentary on social media and a repeated myth that conviction rates in reported rape cases is only 6%. In fact, once rape cases reach court, nearly 60% result in convictions.

Angela Rafferty QC, chairwoman of the Criminal Bar Association has warned that the police and CPS may show unconscious bias in cases of sexual assault. She worries about "sexual - offence cases where complainants are labelled victims before a trial has started".




Well worth buying the paper to read this article.

b.gud

Deleted User wrote: »

Munster need a 10, Connacht would fall over themselves for a half the quality of Jackson and I reckon he'd be starting half at 4 or 5 Prem teams.

He maybe radioactive at this point. Who knows, but there aren't a shortage of suitors.

With regard to Munster and Connacht I assume the fact that the IRFU have already let him go means there is less than 0 chance that he will end up at either club.

b.gud

b.gud wrote: »

With regard to Munster and Connacht I assume the fact that the IRFU have already let him go means there is less than 0 chance that he will end up at either club.

I was more making the point that there are loads of clubs that would happily sign them bar the baggage.

Former Former

Asus X540L wrote: »

What was Paddy Jackson's contact worth? 600k?

His Ulster contract? I'd say 350k or thereabouts.

MJohnston

awec wrote: »

MJohnston wrote: »

My point of view is that I think them being moved on from Ulster and Ireland was the correct choice for everyone, and that Ulster Rugby needs to move on and get on with appointing a new DoR.

URSC, and McBride representing them, have been either naively or ignorantly pushing for the two players to return with the presumption that this was what their entire supporter base wanted, and are only now stopping to ask what people think. I doubt they'll get anything other than C/D/E responses now that they've essentially alienated anyone who might have been in URSC that was of the A/B opinion.

Their position as "Official Supporters Club" also gives them a perceived public standing as representatives of Ulster fans in general, and I'm pretty angry that they felt like getting involved with this was acceptable or indeed welcome.

The URSC is the only properly organised body representing any section of the Ulster support so it would be pretty bizarre if they didn't have an opinion on these events.

As for alienating people, I call nonsense on that. The only statement they have made is to distance themselves from the "concerned fans" bollocks in the paper.

They are balloting their membership, who knows what the outcome will be? I can guess, based on reaction on their facebook page and the official ulster facebook page and the official ulster twitter that it'll not be the response you are hoping for.

Not really sure why you'd get angry about it. Is it because they might put forward a view that is different to yours?

You call nonsense on that do you? They've alienated me, and I was a former Ulster Rugby member (not a URSC member mind you), and Willie J McBride was most certainly speaking on behalf of URSC when he called for their reinstatement. I don't know what else you need for some people to feel alienated? I'd suggest that as a mod you should be more empathetic to differing viewpoints on this issue than you have demonstrated so far in this thread, I don't like how you've been dismissive of anyone who didn't want to see them return to play for Ulster.

prawnsambo

ClanofLams wrote: »

Think it’s safe to say he won’t be showing up at another province.

Would think he will get picked up, he’s too good a player not to but if I was him/Olding I would be a bit concerned to see clubs proactively denying links. Clubs issuing statements to specifically rule out players is so unusual I can’t remember the last time it happened.

French clubs seem to do it most. I remember Toulon denying that POC was moving there when it was first mooted.

awec

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43784682

"The chief executive of Ulster Rugby said he cannot envisage Paddy Jackson or Stuart Olding playing for Ulster or Ireland again."

Logan finally crawls out from under his rock.

"Mr Logan also said that "fractures" have occurred among volunteers, players and clubs as a result of the players' dismissal and that his job was to ensure that there was "an opportunity to unite". "

Good luck with that. Interesting to see a public admittance that there are disagreements among the players and the volunteers at Ulster.

launish116

Dubinusa wrote: »

Looking over the Ulster squad and reading launish16's analysis, it really is piss poor for a starting point.
The academy players will be used more frequently now, and imo, that's a good thing. Sink or swim. Could be a gem in there, or 2. Obviously the oh position is key, so they will probably address that 1st. The lh should also be addressed  quickly as that is one of the major problems with Ulster. Very little quality at loose head. Still think Coulson is worth a shot.
I'd love to see Flanagan come back from Sarries. Not a star but was good for Munster. Dalton is a very good prospect and probably will be signed to a contract in the next year. Regan needs to step up and I think he is another decent prospect.  He was very good for the u20's last year. I thought he was as good as Dowling.
Amazing, Ulsters backline ie thin!! Never thought I'd say that. Not sure if there's anybody out of contract on the island that can step in, although they could look to snatch someone from another academy C.O.B? Jack Kelly? Or Shane Daly. Interesting off season coming up.

Academy - Definitely a lot of potential coming through. I just worry with the sink or swim approach, hasn't helped Ulster in the past. Need gradual and controlled integration. 
Outhalf - really think we need a mentor more than a game changer. With McPhilips and Lowry there to take knowledge on board.
Coulson - Also thought he was a good shout. Then i was informed about controversy in France and can't see Ulster going that direction especially now.
Deegan - Don't know to much about him or seen him play. We really could do with some 2nd row's coming through! Dalton is big aggressive/mobile/explosive, but raw and I do wonder is he more suited blindside.
Backline - is some shock when you consider last year and by end of this season we've lost almost a full international backline.

awec

awec wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43784682

"The chief executive of Ulster Rugby said he cannot envisage Paddy Jackson or Stuart Olding playing for Ulster or Ireland again."

Logan finally crawls out from under his rock.

"Mr Logan also said that "fractures" have occurred among volunteers, players and clubs as a result of the players' dismissal and that his job was to ensure that there was "an opportunity to unite". "

Good luck with that. Interesting to see a public admittance that there are disagreements among the players and the volunteers at Ulster.

Let's be realistic. If Ulster rugby are broken into fragments the club is fcuked plain and simple.

Finding an acceptable compromise is optimal, finding a consensus forward is in the interest of everyone who wants Ulster rugby to succeed.

irishbucsfan

Not sure what else Logan was expected to say really.

He's definitely been a bit of an invisible man, perhaps the backlash over the coaching catastrophe rattled him a bit.

Asus X540L

Former Former wrote: »

His Ulster contract? I'd say 350k or thereabouts.

Tax and legal fees he won't see much change from that.
Depends on if he gets his legal fees back off the prosecution.

prawnsambo

awec wrote: »

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43784682

"The chief executive of Ulster Rugby said he cannot envisage Paddy Jackson or Stuart Olding playing for Ulster or Ireland again."

Logan finally crawls out from under his rock.

"Mr Logan also said that "fractures" have occurred among volunteers, players and clubs as a result of the players' dismissal and that his job was to ensure that there was "an opportunity to unite". "

Good luck with that. Interesting to see a public admittance that there are disagreements among the players and the volunteers at Ulster.

To be fair, that's a very honest and fortright statement. No bullcrap and a recognition of the issues that face Ulster Rugby.

Either way there would have been fractures. Only time will heal them.

prawnsambo

Asus X540L wrote: »

Tax and legal fees he won't see much change from that.
Depends on if he gets his legal fees back off the prosecution.

This wasn't a civil case. Your costs are your own.

launish116

Logan looked shocked there when asked should he step down on UTV news.

Asus X540L

prawnsambo wrote: »

This wasn't a civil case. Your costs are your own.

I read he's applied to get his costs back

bilston

Someone on Twitter defending the sacking of Paddy Jackson on Twitter because of his attitude towards women via whatsapp

Someone responded...what did he say about women on WhatsApp...?

No response from the original tweeter but actually the answer to that would be...absolutely nothing whatsoever!!!

The more I think about it the more I reckon Jackson has been completely shafted by circumstance here. Again I get the IRFU position, but equally those hoping he doesn't get a contract anywhere (of which there are many on Twitter) need to cop themselves on.

mfceiling

launish116 wrote: »

Logan looked shocked there when asked should he step down on UTV news.

I'm surprised. This is the same man who said Ulster would be one of the biggest clubs etc and an envy of those elsewhere.

We've a great stadium and great fans and that's it. Team has gone backwards in the last 10 years. He's been at the helm.

I know he's more a business man than a rugby man cause only a business man would have shelled out a fortune on Piatau when there was glaring holes in the pack.

jm08

mfceiling wrote: »

Yesterday's Sunday Times.

In the magazine section is an article about men being falsely accused of rape in England.

They need to ensure anonymity for the accused as well as the claimant for starters. One of the lads got home at 2am and was arrested at 5am and his picture was all over the Sun/Mail that day etc.

That is just ridiculous and leaves the the system wide open to abuse. Those two lads were very unlucky - one of the claimants was mentally unstable and the other one was a scorned girlfriend who wanted to make him suffer. While the mentally ill woman is impossible to punish, but the other one should be charged with wasting police time at least.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

Let's be realistic. If Ulster rugby are broken into fragments the club is fcuked plain and simple.

Finding an acceptable compromise is optimal, finding a consensus forward is in the interest of everyone who wants Ulster rugby to succeed.

Hard to see a compromise here.

prawnsambo

Asus X540L wrote: »

I read he's applied to get his costs back

Yeah, I looked it up. It's not very likely though that he'll get all his costs or even anything. Firstly they're capped at legal aid rates which can be as low as 10% of private costs and you first have to be refused legal aid on the grounds of being able to afford your own defence. It's a weird system and the highest likelihood is you'll get nothing.

errlloyd

[Deleted User] wrote: »

But where does moral innocence stop?

Reasonable cause. I can only make a judgement where I have reasonable cause to make that judgement.

Neil3030

bilston wrote: »

Someone on Twitter defending the sacking of Paddy Jackson on Twitter because of his attitude towards women via whatsapp

Someone responded...what did he say about women on WhatsApp...?

No response from the original tweeter but actually the answer to that would be...absolutely nothing whatsoever!!!

The more I think about it the more I reckon Jackson has been completely shafted by circumstance here. Again I get the IRFU position, but equally those hoping he doesn't get a contract anywhere (of which there are many on Twitter) need to cop themselves on.

His lawyer's combative statement after the court case was a terrible idea in hindsight. And the firm's decision to sue O'Riordan. He was always likely to remain a villain in large quarters of the public, but these two acts made sure of it.

Dubinusa

I got the impression from Logans statement, that the players supported this decision??
Maybe I need to read it again.
He is also saying that the sponsors had no role in the decision, hmmm.
I think he should not have made a comment until the dust settles. I can't see the players happy with this, maybe I'm wrong.
Absolutely the sponsors had a role and why not? Everybody gets it. Why say that?

Squidgy Black

Dubinusa wrote: »

I got the impression from Logans statement, that the players supported this decision??
Maybe I need to read it again.
He is also saying that the sponsors had no role in the decision, hmmm.
I think he should not have made a comment until the dust settles. I can't see the players happy with this, maybe I'm wrong.
Absolutely the sponsors had a role and why not? Everybody gets it. Why say that?

He states that there's "fractures" between players over the decision, to me that means that some players agree and some don't and there's turmoil in the locker room over it.

Doesn't sound like a good environment either way.

jm08

Statement from Rugby Players Ireland

Rugby Players Ireland acknowledges today’s statements by the IRFU, Ulster Rugby, Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding. We too are committed to rugby’s values of respect, integrity and inclusivity. Through our Player Development Programme we will work to ensure that these values are upheld throughout the rugby family both on and off the pitch. As the representative body for Ireland’s professional rugby players, we will now take time to examine the way the review process was carried out by the IRFU. We are not in a position to comment until such time as this has been completed.

https://www.rugbyplayersireland.ie/statement-paddy-jackson-stuart-olding/

They certainly don't seem to be up in arms about the decision to release them anyway.

The Lost Sheep

To change the subject quite a bit...

On Saturday week the Ulster Society of Rugby Football Referees (USRFR) are holding their annual Dinner in the Great Northern Hotel Bundoran.
Not news at all normally but its the first time the dinner has ever been held outside of the 6 counties.

If Ulster really want to progress on the pitch they need to do more things like this and bring them outside the 6...

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

Statement from Rugby Players Ireland

Rugby Players Ireland acknowledges today’s statements by the IRFU, Ulster Rugby, Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding. We too are committed to rugby’s values of respect, integrity and inclusivity. Through our Player Development Programme we will work to ensure that these values are upheld throughout the rugby family both on and off the pitch. As the representative body for Ireland’s professional rugby players, we will now take time to examine the way the review process was carried out by the IRFU. We are not in a position to comment until such time as this has been completed.

https://www.rugbyplayersireland.ie/statement-paddy-jackson-stuart-olding/

They certainly don't seem to be up in arms about the decision to release them anyway.

No. They are reacting in the way you would want everyone else to have done. They are taking time to consider the events and make an informed, thoughtful decision.

Sinbad_NI

FWIW I'd have them playing for Ulster tomorrow.

They've effectively been thrown to the social media dogs in my opinion.

Be a long time before I'll be paying money to support the IRFU, Ulster Rugby or any of the sponsors involved.

Foxtrol

Neil3030 wrote: »

His lawyer's combative statement after the court case was a terrible idea in hindsight. And the firm's decision to sue O'Riordan. He was always likely to remain a villain in large quarters of the public, but these two acts made sure of it.

Olding's and Jackson's later apology have been used as sticks to beat them with by those who wanted their heads so no matter what he did initially it would have made little difference. I think his strategy actually worked out better than others in some respects. He had to draw the line with comments like that of O'Riordan and you could see that public figures and the media being much more careful in their analysis from the point of the threat onwards. I think it also likely played a part in getting the payoff they did from the IRFU.

Digifriendly

Brian Moore has interesting aricle in Daily Telegraph re the whole issue. There is a brief summary on this link as you have to register to read full DT article -
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/decision-to-sack-jackson-and-olding-the-right-move-says-exinternational-moore-36813927.html

Hands Like Flippers

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

To change the subject quite a bit...

On Saturday week the Ulster Society of Rugby Football Referees (USRFR) are holding their annual Dinner in the Great Northern Hotel Bundoran.
Not news at all normally but its the first time the dinner has ever been held outside of the 6 counties.

If Ulster really want to progress on the pitch they need to do more things like this and bring them outside the 6...

I agree LS but would have to say that on the ground I have not really noticed an issue. I think we are all glad to see the players from whatever enjoying the game.

tretorn

The sins of all men are being heaped on their shoulders and thats a lot of weight for such young men to carry.
Olding was only twenty two, people are forgetting that.
Yes, he drank too much and so did Jackson, both did things they never would have done sober but they didnt rape anyone.
All young men and their parents who guide them need to keep this case in mind, jackson and olding could very easily be our sons.
If any would makes an allegation against you she will automatically be believed, thats the default position. Even if there is no evidence a case will be made and its not until you get to court that gour innocence can be established.
The jurys verdict wont be worth didly squat in the face of social media warriers ably backed up by their friends in the biased media, we live in dangerous times and there are too many cowardly people who wont stand up and be counted.
The only people to emerge with dignity after this whole sorry mess are the judge and the jury and Dara Florence the independent witness, all dragged into this debacle by other peoples drunken orgy.

molloyjh

tretorn wrote: »

The jurys verdict wont be worth didly squat in the face of social media warriers ably backed up by their friends in the biased media, we live in dangerous times and there are too many cowardly people who wont stand up and be counted.

What utter drivel. None of the men charged are now in prison, so the jurys verdict stands unchallenged and will continue to do so.

I can't help but think there were reactions like this to the idea of equality of gender and race. There needs to be a real change in how some men talk about, treat and act towards women. And if society as a whole doesn't "stand up and be counted" when another human being is treated so appallingly by public figures then we really do live in "dangerous times". :rolleyes:

Synode

molloyjh wrote: »

What utter drivel. None of the men charged are now in prison, so the jurys verdict stands unchallenged and will continue to do so.

I can't help but think there were reactions like this to the idea of equality of gender and race. There needs to be a real change in how some men talk about, treat and act towards women. And if society as a whole doesn't "stand up and be counted" when another human being is treated so appallingly by public figures then we really do live in "dangerous times". :rolleyes:

Men will be getting lynched soon for one night stands if there isn't a breakfast the next morning :rolleyes:

irishbucsfan

Synode wrote: »

Men will be getting lynched soon for one night stands if there isn't a breakfast the next morning :rolleyes:

Have you ever considered, maybe, talking to a woman?

Might help you understand what they are actually upset about instead of coming out with absolutely ridiculous statements like this!

Synode

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Have you ever considered, maybe, talking to a woman?

Might help you understand what they are actually upset about instead of coming out with absolutely ridiculous statements like this!

Of course I've talked to women about this case. My OH is appalled at the treatment of the 4 lads more so than the woman. Mainly because the punishment is completely out of kilter with what occurred. Jackson and Olding had what is now legally regarded as a consensual sexual encounter with the woman. Then went to bed. The woman went home. So where is this appalling treatment that people are talking about? It's completely over the top. Same as some of the condescending attitudes towards people who think they didn't really do anything wrong (see your post above)

molloyjh

Synode wrote: »

Of course I've talked to women about this case. My OH is appalled at the treatment of the 4 lads more so than the woman. Mainly because the punishment is completely out of kilter with what occurred. Jackson and Olding had what is now legally regarded as a consensual sexual encounter with the woman. Then went to bed. The woman went home. So where is this appalling treatment that people are talking about? It's completely over the top. Same as some of the condescending attitudes towards people who think they didn't really do anything wrong (see your post above)

Yeah that isn't a massive oversimplification at all. Sure who care about the bleeding and the crying and the lack of any empathy from the 2 lads in question, let alone the crude discussion by texts after the crying and the bleeding? Sure they didn't rape her, so it's all grand.

foxyladyxx

Synode wrote: »

Of course I've talked to women about this case. My OH is appalled at the treatment of the 4 lads more so than the woman. Mainly because the punishment is completely out of kilter with what occurred. Jackson and Olding had what is now legally regarded as a consensual sexual encounter with the woman. Then went to bed. The woman went home. So where is this appalling treatment that people are talking about? It's completely over the top. Same as some of the condescending attitudes towards people who think they didn't really do anything wrong (see your post above)

I too am all woman and I agree 100% with Synode above/ These guys have suffered enough and rugby ,Ulster Rugby in particular, has been dealt a huge blow.

Of course I also feel for the alleged victim in this case but am sure she is getting the help she needs to move on with her life.

5 young people's lives destroyed and 5 families who will forever bear those scars.

The verdict was unanimously ''not guilty'' but that appears to have mattered not one whit.

irishbucsfan

Synode wrote: »

Of course I've talked to women about this case. My OH is appalled at the treatment of the 4 lads more so than the woman. Mainly because the punishment is completely out of kilter with what occurred. Jackson and Olding had what is now legally regarded as a consensual sexual encounter with the woman. Then went to bed. The woman went home. So where is this appalling treatment that people are talking about? It's completely over the top. Same as some of the condescending attitudes towards people who think they didn't really do anything wrong (see your post above)

Apart from your misunderstanding of the legal system, what you're saying is you haven't taken the time to discuss this with someone "from the other side". Obviously I'm in the wrong for saying "a woman" but you should take the time to sit down, preferably over a pint, and talk with someone who disagrees with you on why their behaviour was wrong.

molloyjh

foxyladyxx wrote: »

I too am all woman and I agree 100% with Synode above/ These guys have suffered enough and rugby ,Ulster Rugby in particular, has been dealt a huge blow.

Of course I also feel for the alleged victim in this case but am sure she is getting the help she needs to move on with her life.

5 young people's lives destroyed and 5 families who will forever bear those scars.

The verdict was unanimously ''not guilty'' but that appears to have mattered not one whit.

Except it mattered 100%, in 100% of the ways it can and should matter. They aren't in jail and no criminal charges are outstanding. That's all that the verdict had any power over.

molloyjh

It's also worth pointing out that Ulster would probably have been dealt a much larger blow had they not acted in the way that they had. BoI pulling their sponsorship would have been huge and finding another sponsor in that scenario would have been difficult.

Synode

molloyjh wrote: »

Yeah that isn't a massive oversimplification at all. Sure who care about the bleeding and the crying and the lack of any empathy from the 2 lads in question, let alone the crude discussion by texts after the crying and the bleeding?

The bleeding - well for starters was it menstrual or not? Nobody knows. If it did occur during the act then so be it. These things happen all the time during sex. So what's the big deal?

Lack of empathy - how so?

As for the texts - some of them crude and probably in bad taste yes, but they were in a private chat and as far as I'm concerned, nobody's business. Also, Jackson's texts themselves are innocuous

Synode

Synode wrote: »

Of course I've talked to women about this case. My OH is appalled at the treatment of the 4 lads more so than the woman. Mainly because the punishment is completely out of kilter with what occurred. Jackson and Olding had what is now legally regarded as a consensual sexual encounter with the woman. Then went to bed. The woman went home. So where is this appalling treatment that people are talking about? It's completely over the top. Same as some of the condescending attitudes towards people who think they didn't really do anything wrong (see your post above)

This isn't the case. It wasn't proved that it was criminal, that is all.

On 'thought crime' and changing attitudes, change takes time, telling people to change how they think has never worked.

I'm of the opinion that Olding, Jackson and Gilroy like other people their age will grow out of these attitudes and this behaviour. Someone asked me how I'd feel if it was my sister they were talking about. I'd say that if my sister hangs out with people who don't respect her, that's down to her for choosing poor friends or partners.

Now if they force her into something she doesn't consent to, that's different, but that hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I really don't know what's wrong with just saying "some people are assholes and I choose not to associate with them" rather than "we need to stand up to these attitudes". Attitudes change, but not by poking people righteously with a morality stick.

If someone is an asshole in private and a role model in public so what? I've met plenty of people that are considered role models and I thought they were absolutely toxic.

foxyladyxx

molloyjh wrote: »

Except it mattered 100%, in 100% of the ways it can and should matter. They aren't in jail and no criminal charges are outstanding. That's all that the verdict had any power over.

Their names will forever be linked synonymous with the ''rape trial'' .. that is all people will remember.

They have lost their livelihood and their good names and have to now leave the country to play rugby and likely will never play for Ireland again.

Synode

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Apart from your misunderstanding of the legal system, what you're saying is you haven't taken the time to discuss this with someone "from the other side". Obviously I'm in the wrong for saying "a woman" but you should take the time to sit down, preferably over a pint, and talk with someone who disagrees with you on why their behaviour was wrong.

I've talked with many people irishbucsfan over many pints. Most are in agreement they did nothing wrong. Most of those who think they did do something wrong still think a rape occurred.

So if you can shed some light on 'why their behaviour was wrong' instead of skirting around what you think that would be great

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

Yeah that isn't a massive oversimplification at all. Sure who care about the bleeding and the crying and the lack of any empathy from the 2 lads in question, let alone the crude discussion by texts after the crying and the bleeding? Sure they didn't rape her, so it's all grand.

And this is a massive exaggeration Molloy.

There is no evidence to suggest they didn't care about the bleeding and it's unclear when the alleged victim started crying. It's entirely possible they had no idea about the state of the claimant because there is no evidence that they saw her distressed.

We don't know what the demeanour of the alleged victim was like the last time Olding and Jackson saw her so reading into it the way you have is disingenuous.

molloyjh

Synode wrote: »

The bleeding - well for starters was it menstrual or not? Nobody knows. If it did occur during the act then so be it. These things happen all the time during sex. So what's the big deal?

Lack of empathy - how so?

As for the texts - some of them crude and probably in bad taste yes, but they were in a private chat and as far as I'm concerned, nobody's business. Also, Jackson's texts themselves are innocuous

The menstrual thing is a complete cop out. Nothing more. A nice tidy thing people can fall back on to save them from not looking like they don't care about the well being of another individual. If there was blood, then some consideration should have been shown. It was ignored. And when combined with the fact that the woman in question was also crying while in the house, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out someone needed help. That's where the empathy comes into it.

The texts on their own were just bad taste and a rap on the knuckles would be appropriate there. But in light of the bleeding and the crying it takes on a new context.

As for "private chat", what is known cannot be unknown. Whether it was private or not before doesn't matter. It's in the public domain now and can't be ignored.

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

And this is a massive exaggeration Molloy.

There is no evidence to suggest they didn't care about the bleeding and it's unclear when the alleged victim started crying. It's entirely possible they had no idea about the state of the claimant because there is no evidence that they saw her distressed.

We don't know what the demeanour of the alleged victim was like the last time Olding and Jackson saw her so reading into it the way you have is disingenuous.

Harrison saw her in the state she was in, and that was in the house wasn't it? Where were the others then? We know Jackson saw the blood too don't we? He said as much, and claimed he thought it was menstrual and was trying not to embarrass her by ignoring it.