Rory Best needs to step down before next weekend! Mod warning op

hatrickpatrick

Omackeral wrote: »

Difference here is that Best is giving a character reference on the man he knows and has known. Should the defendant be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt and Best still endorses him, then by all means have a go.

This. And I really wish he or someone else who is condemned in this manner by the SJW Twitterati would come out and play the presumption of innocence card on the record. It's not enough that this battle is being fought on anonymous message boards and vitriolic Twitter threads, someone with a respected, high profile voice needs to have the balls to come out and say "unless this person is found guilty of committing a crime, people are flat out wrong to discuss them as if they are already guilty of it."

I'm not saying I'd put that burden on Best or anyone else, the consequences for the individual in question would be utterly devastating in the current climate, but someone has to do it IMO, before the wheels entirely come off the democratic process in the midst of a moronic mob with flaming torches.

wexie

riffmongous wrote: »

Well it could be seen as trying to create an atmosphere of intimidation, all these high profile stars showing up when the girl is giving her testimony, not when their colleague/friend is

Yeah perhaps, I don't know. From what I gather she won't have been able to see anyone in the room.

the student gave evidence from behind a blue curtain.

(from Indo, not linking the article cause as far as I can tell it's written from a 'guilty' point of view)

As it stands I think there's hardly cause for calls for him to loose the captaincy.
Now, if he stands as a character witness and it turns out there's a guilty verdict perhaps there may be more cause to doubt his judgement.

Vladimir Poontang

Vladimir Poontang wrote: »

Ah yes another chapter in the latest SJW effort to ruin a man's career and life. Fortunately under Irish law you are innocent until proven guilty.

Rory Best has done nothing wrong whatsoever.

Take your manhating campaigns elsewhere

Think the Op is Sam Boland

Jayesdiem

This whole hashtag captain thing requires nobody's attention but I can't resist:

-Rory Best can do whatever the hell he wants to do and it is nobody else's business.

-He is perfectly entitled to support his friend(s) who are claiming their innocence.

-Even if they are found guilty, it doesn't mean that they are. Should that transpire, he would still be entitled to support them.

-Even if his friend's are guilty, he is still entitled to support them, in private and in public.

-None of Rory Best's opinions or actions are the concern of any hashtag warriors or anyone else for that matter.

ohnonotgmail

professore wrote: »

Well if they show some convincing evidence that prove the guilt of the defendants, e.g. a recording of her screaming or saying to please stop or whatever, then as a character witness that would change your mind on whether they were of good character, would it not? Or are we all meant to worship some people and vilify others regardless of their actions?

As to whether he should attend - of course he should bloody attend! He is going to give testimony that has the potential to let guilty people go free or alternatively wrongfully convict innocent men and further destroy their lives.

Reading the crap that the newspapers spout these days doesn't cut it.

If he is a character witness he would not be called unless they have been found guilty. Character witnesses speak in mitigation during sentencing. If he was a witness to the events he would not be allowed attend court until he was called to give evidence.

riffmongous

Jayesdiem wrote: »

This whole hashtag captain thing requires nobody's attention but I can't resist:

-Rory Best can do whatever the hell he wants to do and it is nobody else's business.

-He is perfectly entitled to support his friend(s) who are claiming their innocence.

-Even if they are found guilty, it doesn't mean that they are. Should that transpire, he would still be entitled to support them.

-Even if his friend's are guilty, he is still entitled to support them, in private and in public.

-None of Rory Best's opinions or actions are the concern of any hashtag warriors or anyone else for that matter.

And people are perfectly entitled to call for him to be removed as captain

*Not that I think he should be, just saying

Jayesdiem

riffmongous wrote: »

Jayesdiem wrote: »

This whole hashtag captain thing requires nobody's attention but I can't resist:

-Rory Best can do whatever the hell he wants to do and it is nobody else's business.

-He is perfectly entitled to support his friend(s) who are claiming their innocence.

-Even if they are found guilty, it doesn't mean that they are. Should that transpire, he would still be entitled to support them.

-Even if his friend's are guilty, he is still entitled to support them, in private and in public.

-None of Rory Best's opinions or actions are the concern of any hashtag warriors or anyone else for that matter.

And people are perfectly entitled to call for him to be removed as captain

*Not that I think he should be, just saying

They are but why would they when it's quite obvious he's done nothing wrong? They are entitled to call for Juergen Klop to step down as Liverpool coach too, but why would they?

AudreyHepburn

He doesn’t need to do any such thing. He’s entitled to support his friends and teammates as he sees fit and he shouldn’t be made to feel he has to explain himself or apologize.

For the record I believe they’re guilty but that doesn’t change the fact that Rory has done nothing more or less than what he is entitled to do.

This has zero to do with rugby bar the fact that the men involved play the game. What happened didn’t happen for any for any rugby related reason and Rory himself is certainly not involved bar as a character witness - which he also has the right to do if he wishes.

He said himself it’s important for him to see both sides of the story - I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that.

This #notmycaptain rubbish is as bad as #metoo.

AudreyHepburn

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Wow, so now people are to be criticised for attending a trial?

Apparently you’re only allowed to attend this kind of trial nowadays as long as you’re there for the victim and automatically assume the accused is guilty.

I feel ashamed to be a woman sometimes. You’d swear all men were out to get us the way some of us go on.

Rubberchikken

This is why I'd prefer to see no names mentioned in tje media while a rape trial is in progress.
If the accused is found guilty then by all means then name them.

riffmongous

riffmongous wrote: »

Well it could be seen as trying to create an atmosphere of intimidation, all these high profile stars showing up when the girl is giving her testimony, not when their colleague/friend is

Especially in the light of texts she sent a friend saying she didn't want to report as it would mean going against the whole Ulster rugby team.

And now her fear has come true, with players showing up in support on the day she gives evidence. To be fair, they've done nothing wrong, but it would have been prudent if they wanted to appear that they weren't showing up as a show of strength but in support of a teammate, if they had chosen another day. Any other day, in fact.

AudreyHepburn

Candie wrote: »

Especially in the light of texts she sent a friend saying she didn't want to report as it would mean going against the whole Ulster rugby team.

And now her fear has come true, with players showing up in support on the day she gives evidence. To be fair, they've done nothing wrong, but it would have been prudent if they wanted to appear that they weren't showing up as a show of strength but in support of a teammate, if they had chosen another day. Any other day, in fact.

In all reality I think the reaction would have been the same no matter what day he went because he would be there for his teammates and not for her.

As you say, he’s done nothing wrong and he’s entitled to attend as and when he chooses.

the_pen_turner

surely if your there is hear her side of the story you have to attend on the day she tells her side. no point going any other days

the_pen_turner

Candie wrote: »

Especially in the light of texts she sent a friend saying she didn't want to report as it would mean going against the whole Ulster rugby team.

And now her fear has come true, with players showing up in support on the day she gives evidence. To be fair, they've done nothing wrong, but it would have been prudent if they wanted to appear that they weren't showing up as a show of strength but in support of a teammate, if they had chosen another day. Any other day, in fact.

would she even know he was there until afterwards

pjohnson

the_pen_turner wrote: »

surely if your there is hear her side of the story you have to attend on the day she tells her side. no point going any other days

No males should attend on those days.

AudreyHepburn

pjohnson wrote: »

No males should attend on those days.

That has to be the most ridiculous thing I’ve heard in a long time.

At best woefully naive.

Fr Tod Umptious

If Best is giving his support to the accused then I'm sure he would have done so in private long ago, and that the accused are grateful for that support.

I'm not sure why Best would appear at the trial, the optics are not good.

Let it happen and find out any details you want to afterwards.

Stheno

Candie wrote: »

Especially in the light of texts she sent a friend saying she didn't want to report as it would mean going against the whole Ulster rugby team.

And now her fear has come true, with players showing up in support on the day she gives evidence. To be fair, they've done nothing wrong, but it would have been prudent if they wanted to appear that they weren't showing up as a show of strength but in support of a teammate, if they had chosen another day. Any other day, in fact.

She was behind a screen and wouldn't have known who was there?

Two players were there as they are providing character witnesses and were advised to attend court

Given they are in camp and have one weekday off to do so their choices are limited

the_pen_turner

Fr Tod Umptious wrote: »

If Best is giving his support to the accused then I'm sure he would have done so in private long ago, and that the accused are grateful for that support.

I'm not sure why Best would appear at the trial, the optics are not good.

Let it happen and find out any details you want to afterwards.

if some friends of yours were acused of something as serious as this would you like to hear the accusations first hand or read about it in the paper the day after where you have no guarantee that the facts are correct

Stheno

the_pen_turner wrote: »

if some friends of yours were acused of something as serious as this would you like to hear the accusations first hand or read about it in the paper the day after where you have no guarantee that the facts are correct

Or even to get experience of what court is like if you are a potential witness if you have never been before?

Fr Tod Umptious

the_pen_turner wrote: »

if some friends of yours were acused of something as serious as this would you like to hear the accusations first hand or read about it in the paper the day after where you have no guarantee that the facts are correct

If I was in the public eye and had already given my support to my friend and the friend knew I supported them then I'd avoid it.

I'm sure there are plenty in court associated with Ulster rugby that are not know to the public that could keep Best informed of the facts of the case.

He does not have to solely rely on the media like you and I

Dev84

I think in hindsight Best is probably wishing he hadnt gone anywhere near the rape trial.

However he made an error in judgememt and a mistake. But were great in this country at hanging people out to dry. He is not on trial.

Stheno

Dev84 wrote: »

I think in hindsight Best is probably wishing he hadnt gone anywhere near the rape trial.

However he made an error in judgememt and a mistake. But were great in this country at hanging people out to dry. He is not on trial.

I'd say the same

AllForIt

I think it's totally wrong that court cases are reported on in the media on a daily basis where ppl come to conclusions about both parties before the case is over, where even then, sometimes, the judgement is incorrect, as we saw particularly in a specific case in the UK last year.

Relevantly, why would would anyone complain about someone giving support when nothing has been proven yet. That's the whole point of having the court case in the first place. Given the number of false rape claims I've heard about in the last while I think my point is especially valid in rape trials.

I have no interest in this particularity rape trail, I couldn't care less about sports 'stars' and this case is of no interest to me whatsoever and I'm already sick and tired of seeing reports about this case in the media whether it be the telly news or online newspaper sources. I also think there is something distasteful and gratuitous about the prominence in the media of these kinds of news stories and the way that treads on the subject take off on here like a wildfire.

wexie

pjohnson wrote: »

No males should attend on those days.

Would that include barristers and judges like?

NIMAN

Dev84 wrote: »

I think in hindsight Best is probably wishing he hadnt gone anywhere near the rape trial.

However he made an error in judgememt and a mistake. But were great in this country at hanging people out to dry. He is not on trial.

The SJWs just needed something to create a new hashtag about.

NIMAN

NIMAN wrote: »

The SJWs just needed something to create a nw hashtag about.

Slow few days for the offended brigade - some were panicking that they weren’t upset

Jack Kanoff

pjohnson wrote: »

No males should attend on those days.

Prosecutor is male... defence barrister is male....sure just give them 25 years now..
:rolleyes:

AudreyHepburn

wexie wrote: »

Would that include barristers and judges like?

How about male jurors and witnesses?

Stheno

Jack Kanoff wrote: »

Prosecutor is male... defence barrister is male....sure just give them 25 years now..
:rolleyes:

As is at least one defence lawyer.

But hey why not go so far as to ban the defenders from hearing their accuser?

AudreyHepburn

NIMAN wrote: »

I'd say the girl probably wouldn't recognise him.

Even if she did it would still not be a good enough reason for him not to be there.

wexie

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

How about male jurors and witnesses?

jayzus no!!! They're men?! How could they possibly ever give a fair account on a rape trial? Dontcha know none of em can be trusted? Deviant savages!!! Every last one?



We're clearly moving into a more enlightened and tolerant age

AudreyHepburn

wexie wrote: »

jayzus no!!! They're men?! How could they possibly ever give a fair account on a rape trial? Dontcha know none of em can be trusted? Deviant savages!!! Every last one?



We're clearly moving into a more enlightened and tolerant age

The sad thing there’s an awful lot of women nowadays who genuinely believe that. And they are the same women now casting aspersions on Rory Best for no reason.

I fear for my gender sometimes, I really do.

riffmongous

Stuckforcash wrote: »

Very serious unsubstantiated allegation there based on nothing. I'd suggest reading up on how court proceedings work before getting overly emotional and casting aspersions that help absolutely no one.

What better way to formulate an educated opinion on something than to listen to testimony first hand from the alleged victim. It's a logical and responsible action.

Is it typical for character witnesses to attend a trial beforehand? It seems a bit strange really, shouldnt the character statement be independent of the trial?

Jack Kanoff

I find that the majority of the #notmycaptain brigade haven't a clue!
.some even castigating him for being a disgrace to be irish.... enough said in my book
Let the case play out in court...let both sides have their say...and let justice be done... (And as someone who sat on the jury of a historic rape case ..it most certainly will be done)

BrianBoru00

riffmongous wrote: »

Is it typical for character witnesses to attend a trial beforehand? It seems a bit strange really, shouldnt the character statement be independent of the trial?

In a way it should but I would imagine that if theres afriend of yours your character reference would go something like "I've know him 20 years and he's as honest as the day is long and wouldn't hurt a fly, Hes a well brought up individual, a super team mate and the kind of guy you wouldn't mind going out with your sister"

But if you went and actually heard testimony then you may dial it down a notch and change the above to "Look I've know him 20 years and I've never witnessed him been anything but courteous in social situations and he's great team mate to have.

patapt

Why did the captain of this Irish rugby team, 3 days before he led Ireland against France, in Paris, take it upon himself, (unknown to his manager and team mates, according to an IRFU source), apart with the one who went with him, attend a rape trial on the day the victim is giving her testimony.
He and his manager firstly refused to answer questions on the matter, saying it was a legal matter. (him and his 3 companions trip to court, is a legal matter?)
After a couple of days, decided he could comment, saying he wanted to hear both sides of the story,( couldn't say that the first time?). Or perhaps he had received some more advice, from the person or persons who advised him to go in the first place.
What type of man, goes to a rape trial, on the day the victim is giving evidence, particularly one who knows he is going to said trial on a later date? And why did he need 3 other rugby players by his side.
Spin this any way you want, or put up counter points, but I am physically sick inside by the actions of the irish rugby fraternity here.

Muahahaha

Dev84 wrote: »

I think in hindsight Best is probably wishing he hadnt gone anywhere near the rape trial.

However he made an error in judgememt and a mistake. But were great in this country at hanging people out to dry. He is not on trial.

Yeah that is how I feel about it- Rory Best is absolutely entitled to show up and he should not be condemned for doing so. But what many people on this thread are missing is that he did not have to show up and by doing so the optics for him do not look good. I say this as irrespective of the outcome of the trial we already have evidence of the three accused speaking about "spit roasting" this young girl. They havent exactly covered themselves in glory here and as Rory Best is a father himself I doubt he would be too impressed if his daughter was spoken about by anyone in this way.

No way should he lose the captaincy and the people calling for that are idiots. But if I were in his shoes I would have stayed well away, nothing good was every going to come from him showing up and he could just easily supported his team mates in private.

Dev84

patapt wrote: »

Why did the captain of this Irish rugby team, 3 days before he led Ireland against France, in Paris, take it upon himself, (unknown to his manager and team mates, according to an IRFU source), apart with the one who went with him, attend a rape trial on the day the victim is giving her testimony.
He and his manager firstly refused to answer questions on the matter, saying it was a legal matter. (him and his 3 companions trip to court, is a legal matter?)


After a couple of days, decided he could comment, saying he wanted to hear both sides of the story,( couldn't say that the first time?). Or perhaps he had received some more advice, from the person or persons who advised him to go in the first place.
What type of man, goes to a rape trial, on the day the victim is giving evidence, particularly one who knows he is going to said trial on a later date? And why did he need 3 other rugby players by his side.
Spin this any way you want, or put up counter points, but I am physically sick inside by the actions of the irish rugby fraternity here.

High horse dismount.

SSr0

patapt wrote: »

I am physically sick inside by the actions of the irish rugby fraternity here.

Bahahahahahahahhahahaha!!

I hope you know that me and 99% of other people here reading your nonsense, are having a good laugh at it.

patapt

Laugh away Sir, it is my opinion, and if you find it amusing, so be it.

AudreyHepburn

patapt wrote: »

Why did the captain of this Irish rugby team, 3 days before he led Ireland against France, in Paris, take it upon himself, (unknown to his manager and team mates, according to an IRFU source), apart with the one who went with him, attend a rape trial on the day the victim is giving her testimony.
He and his manager firstly refused to answer questions on the matter, saying it was a legal matter. (him and his 3 companions trip to court, is a legal matter?)
After a couple of days, decided he could comment, saying he wanted to hear both sides of the story,( couldn't say that the first time?). Or perhaps he had received some more advice, from the person or persons who advised him to go in the first place.
What type of man, goes to a rape trial, on the day the victim is giving evidence, particularly one who knows he is going to said trial on a later date? And why did he need 3 other rugby players by his side.
Spin this any way you want, or put up counter points, but I am physically sick inside by the actions of the irish rugby fraternity here.

The kind of man who has been called as a witness perhaps?

Rape trials are not and should not be about women. It’s an issue that affects men too whether you like it or not and Rory Best is more than entitled to be there as and when he chooses.

Dev84

Amd btw just to qualify my opinion, i hate Rugby. I believe it is totally elitist. I believe that its a sport for privately schooled chaps amd not your local electrican, guard or shopkeeper.

However I still believe that people are over reacting.

wexie

patapt wrote: »

Laugh away Sir, it is my opinion, and if you find it amusing, so be it.

amusing....no absolutely not. Frightening is probably a more appropriate word.

Laughable....well yes clearly

Foxtrol

patapt wrote: »

Why did the captain of this Irish rugby team, 3 days before he led Ireland against France, in Paris, take it upon himself, (unknown to his manager and team mates, according to an IRFU source), apart with the one who went with him, attend a rape trial on the day the victim is giving her testimony.
He and his manager firstly refused to answer questions on the matter, saying it was a legal matter. (him and his 3 companions trip to court, is a legal matter?)
After a couple of days, decided he could comment, saying he wanted to hear both sides of the story,( couldn't say that the first time?). Or perhaps he had received some more advice, from the person or persons who advised him to go in the first place.
What type of man, goes to a rape trial, on the day the victim is giving evidence, particularly one who knows he is going to said trial on a later date? And why did he need 3 other rugby players by his side.
Spin this any way you want, or put up counter points, but I am physically sick inside by the actions of the irish rugby fraternity here.

I'm going to ignore the ridiculousness of the rest of your post and respond to the bold because I've seen it mentioned elsewhere.

They were simply not going to get drawn into a discussion about it 2 days before the first game of the 6 nations and add fuel to the fire of the outrage brigade. He addressed it after the game so the media has a few days to make a big deal about it and then they can get to focus on the next game.

meeeeh

I think this type of stuff is a perfect opportunity to be outraged about something. People outraged because he was attending and people outraged because people are outraged that he was attending. It's great fun to be outraged these days.

Nekarsulm

Dev84 wrote: »

Amd btw just to qualify my opinion, i hate Rugby. I believe it is totally elitist. I believe that its a sport for privately schooled chaps amd not your local electrican, guard or shopkeeper.

However I still believe that people are over reacting.

I don't know what kind of rugby you watch, but our local teams have an absolute mix of every profession and religion.
Including Guards, plumbers, gas fitters, farmers, lads that work in Halfords, Dunnes, local Co Op, Irish Army etc, etc.

Dev84

Nekarsulm wrote: »

I don't know what kind of rugby you watch, but our local teams have an absolute mix of every profession and religion.
Including Guards, plumbers, gas fitters, farmers, lads that work in Halfords, Dunnes, local Co Op, Irish Army etc, etc.

Yeh sure.Thats towns Rugby.87 percent of the irish squad yesterday were privately schooled. Out of the 12 Irish men that started 10 were privately schooled. Obviously im not counting the non irish (Stress aki and the other lad.)

Foxtrol

meeeeh wrote: »

I think this type of stuff is a perfect opportunity to be outraged about something. People outraged because he was attending and people outraged because people are outraged that he was attending. It's great fun to be outraged these days.

From reading here and a quick dip into twitter I don't think there are really many people outraged by the outrage.

I see people in a calm, straight forward way pointing out that it is wrong that the name of a good man, by all accounts, is being dragged through the mud due to bottom of the barrel drivel by some usual suspects.

Foxtrol

Dev84 wrote: »

Yeh sure.Thats towns Rugby.87 percent of the irish squad yesterday were privately schooled. Out of the 12 Irish men that started 10 were privately schooled. Obviously im not counting the non irish (Stress aki and the other lad.)

You're moving the goalpost now. You said the sport is elitist and you're wrong.

If you want to argue that the Irish team is made up of more privately schooled people then you have a case but it isn't because of elitism. Very few non-private schools have rugby as their number 1 sport and even if they do they don't have the focus and resources that private schools put towards it.