Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

Of course it is about optics. It was never about anything else but optics. If he was a call centre worker he'd be back next Monday, if he was a manager of that company he would be probably told to resign by the share holders.

Great, I'm chuffed you can carry on pretending.

Fr Tod Umptious

facehugger99 wrote: »

Power to the People!

People actually united in horror and revulsion at the callus way 2 privileged young men treated a dunk teenager.

Sure, the twitter mob and man-haters will be blamed by the usual bitter suspects, but Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding were the architects of their own downfall. The other 2 arseholes don't come out of this smelling of roses either, but as profession sportspeople, PJ and SO had the most to lose and behaved the most despicably.

The decision today was inevitable, I knew they were finished with Ireland but once I head on the grapevine that key sponsors were going to pull out if the correct decision wasn't made by Ulster, they were dead men walking. I pointed this out a number of days ago in the previous thread and was proved spot on.

It's a great day that actually gives me hope for the future for a change.

I think your dead right, it as all of their own doing.

High profile professional sports people are in a goldfish bowl, whether that is right or wrong is beside the point, it's the reality of 2018.

They obviously don't have the level of maturity required to understand that anything they say or do could be very quickly put under the microscope.

They will find work elsewhere, they will continue to be professional sportsmen, they might even earn a lot more money than they could have do in Ireland.

Sponsors hold a lot of sway in modern day professional sports, that's what helps teams be successful, again whether people agree with that or not is besdide the point, it's the reality of 2018.

Cushie Butterfield

Fann Linn wrote: »

And the moral of this story is 'stay off watzap!'

Not necessarily, just run any messages by BOI or another major sponsor before sending. Extremely time consuming but there you have it.

On a side note, it’s a sorry day indeed when society (female & male) have to rely on a bank to set the moral barometer.

Squeaky clean banks who brought the country to its knees are now moral dictators.

Sad, terrifying & hilarious imo.

meeeeh

Omackeral wrote: »

He’s Nigerian so probably not.

Well that tells you how well known he is.

Roger Hassenforder

washman3 wrote: »

I don't think anyone really gives a s###e to be honest.

Exactly, and well played, with that eloquent contribution, notwithstanding i suspect the point being wholly and utterly lost on you.
Carry on though, i dont want to have to mansplain something.

joe40

I don't particularly like the term "mansplaining" because it can be used in a lazy way to detract from someone rather than their argument. A bit like calling someone a feminazi.
In this case someone was explaining to a woman why she should not find the word "slut" offensive. That is simply ridiculous and mrsmum was absolutely correct to respond the way she did. If I call a woman a bitch, a witch, a nasty f**cker or any other term it is not a offensive term for others. A slut is. For people who don't understand that, just ask the women in your life what they think.

facehugger99

Cushie Butterfield wrote: »

On a side note, it’s a sorry day indeed when society (female & male) have to rely on a bank to set the moral barometer.

Squeaky clean banks who brought the country to its knees are now moral dictators.

You got it backwards.

Ordinary people and customers of the sponsors set the moral barometer - the sponsors simply jumped in behind the prevailing opinion.

Roger Hassenforder

Mrsmum wrote: »

I know you guys have to latch on to something today seeing as your other cause is lost. Might as well be mansplaining. Btw when you teach your class as I teach my class, that would be called teaching. Surprised you don't know that.

Woosh.
So tell me again what mansplaining is...

I suspect one of us is actually teaching young adults going by your contributions to date, where it seems youve been heretofore unexposed to such language.

Mrsmum

joe40 wrote: »

I don't particularly like the term "mansplaining" because it can be used in a lazy way to detract from someone rather than their argument. A bit like calling someone a feminazi.
In this case someone was explaining to a woman why she should not find the word "slut" offensive. That is simply ridiculous and mrsmum was absolutely correct to respond the way she did. If I call a woman a bitch, a witch, a nasty f**cker or any other term it is not a offensive term for others. A slut is. For people who don't understand that, just ask the women in your life what they think.

Thank you joe40. That is exactly correct.

neonsofa

waffleman wrote: »

Explaining somethin to a person that he/she already understands is not gender specific. Why not just say you are already aware of that - no need to explain.

.

As I said myself in the second part of the post you quoted.

facehugger99

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Woosh.
So tell me again what mansplaining is...

Jesus man - why don't you knock the mansplaining ****e off? - it's boring to to keep spamming the thread with your repetitious waffle.

ArthurDayne

facehugger99 wrote: »

Power to the People!

People actually united in horror and revulsion at the callus way 2 privileged young men treated a dunk teenager.

Sure, the twitter mob and man-haters will be blamed by the usual bitter suspects, but Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding were the architects of their own downfall. The other 2 arseholes don't come out of this smelling of roses either, but as profession sportspeople, PJ and SO had the most to lose and behaved the most despicably.

The decision today was inevitable, I knew they were finished with Ireland but once I head on the grapevine that key sponsors were going to pull out if the correct decision wasn't made by Ulster, they were dead men walking. I pointed this out a number of days ago in the previous thread and was proved spot on.

It's a great day that actually gives me hope for the future for a change.

Facehugger, your glee at this outcome is an emotion you are perfectly entitled to feel -- hell, despite everything I have said here I can still see some understandable rationale for the outcome, even if I don't agree with it. If you think however that justice has been done here and there is 'hope for change', then in the interests of equality and consistency why don't we just do something like this:

1. All citizens of the State shall submit their phones and other electronic devices to the nearest Garda station;

2. All devices will be screened along a rubric created by a panel of experts on public morality and decency. All social media companies will be legally ordered to store messages which are deleted so that they can be retrieved.;

3. Screening will include ALL private correspondence, including with family, spouses and friends.

3. All those who are found to have used terms or language in private conversation that can be deemed offensive to the public or a section of the public shall be automatically liable for expulsion from their jobs.

In one fell swoop -- all those who have used degrading and offensive language will be cast out of their jobs. Only the morally righteous shall remain and the workplaces of Ireland shall be purified. The battle to embed political correctness and moral perfection in private conversations will have been won.

Would you support this program?

Jayesdiem

Mrsmum wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

I don't particularly like the term "mansplaining" because it can be used in a lazy way to detract from someone rather than their argument. A bit like calling someone a feminazi.
In this case someone was explaining to a woman why she should not find the word "slut" offensive. That is simply ridiculous and mrsmum was absolutely correct to respond the way she did. If I call a woman a bitch, a witch, a nasty f**cker or any other term it is not a offensive term for others. A slut is. For people who don't understand that, just ask the women in your life what they think.

Thank you joe40. That is exactly correct.

Factually correct or in your opinion correct?

Mrsmum

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Woosh.
So tell me again what mansplaining is...

I suspect one of us is actually teaching young adults going by your contributions to date, where it seems youve been heretofore unexposed to such language.

You suspect incorrectly. And I also have four teenagers.
See joe40's post to explain what actually happened.

Strazdas

holyhead wrote: »

I think the text messages allied to the allegation of rape did for them. A nice sincere respectful person could be accused of rape but is unlikely to send/share text messages of that ilk to their friends.

It was a bit of everything really. The unsavoury incident and a woman leaving their house distressed and in tears, coupled with the texts the following day bragging about the unsavoury incident and speaking in extremely unflattering terms about the woman and women in general.

They could possibly have stayed with Ulster Rugby with just one of these elements being the case and not the other, but the whole lot combined was enough to push them out the door.

Mrsmum

Jayesdiem wrote: »

Factually correct or in your opinion correct?

Both as regards someone telling me at great lengths why I, a woman should not feel offended by a degrading term used about women. No one but me gets to decide that for me.

facehugger99

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Facehugger, your glee at this outcome is an emotion you are perfectly entitled to feel -- hell, despite everything I have said here I can still see some understandable rationale for the outcome, even if I don't agree with it. If you think however that justice has been done here and there is 'hope for change', then in the interests of equality and consistency why don't we just do something like this:

1. All citizens of the State shall submit their phones and other electronic devices to the nearest Garda station;

2. All devices will be screened along a rubric created by a panel of experts on public morality and decency. All social media companies will be legally ordered to store messages which are deleted so that they can be retrieved.;

3. Screening will include ALL private correspondence, including with family, spouses and friends.

3. All those who are found to have used terms or language in private conversation that can be deemed offensive to the public or a section of the public shall be automatically liable for expulsion from their jobs.

In one fell swoop -- all those who have used degrading and offensive language will be cast out of their jobs. Only the morally righteous shall remain and the workplaces of Ireland shall be purified. The battle to embed political correctness and moral perfection in private conversations will have been won.

Would you support this program?

I've a better idea that will be simpler.

1. Don't act like an arsehole.

pjohnson

Disgracful they have been hounded out after been found not guilty.

ArthurDayne

Mrsmum wrote: »

Thank you joe40. That is exactly correct.

Going to have to ask you both to fish out where I told Mrsmum, or anyone else for that matter, how they should personally feel about being called a slut.

I never said anything of the sort. Pull out to me the sentence where you think that I was maybe even suggesting thatand we can discuss.

Otherwise, you're just putting words in my mouth -- which is unfair and a cowardly way of sidestepping the points I am trying to make.

Roger Hassenforder

facehugger99 wrote: »

Jesus man - why don't you knock the mansplaining ****e off? - it's boring to to keep spamming the thread with your repetitious waffle.

I didnt introduce, cop yourself on now, the grown ups are discussing a serious and topical issue.

Spoon

SterlingArcher

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I think the people who have really let the mask slip are those women at the forefront of Rape Crisis Centres north and south.

Their remit is to prevent rape and to educate on the issues surrounding it.

Rather than make this a conversation about personal responsibility for all young people socialising, they have climbed on to a feminist bandwagon and made it about men and male sporting organisations.

A complete dereliction of their responsibilities imo.

The desperation to abandon reasoned, rational thought, seems to be highly infectious, when it comes to blindly seeking moral superiority in an empty power game that produces no winners.

These are the first utterings, before the loud shriekings of "toxic masculinity" dot dot dot....

Thought so short sighted and utterly void of any complexity.

That family in the car that drowned .the guy who jumped into the water to save that baby while his girlfriend watched on helplessly ( well he was just full of toxic masculinity). His now ex girlfriend is suing the dead families estate by the way...those pesky men amiright.

The men who rushed the terrorists onboard that flight( were just full of toxic masculinity ).

The French policeman that traded his life for the life of a woman inside that shop (That was sexist. Pure toxic masculinity)

The desire for these type of women to try attack men at every level is unwavering.

They are not the good people . You can see the miserable viciousness oozing out of every pore. And these want to be the ones to dictate how a man should behave.

ArthurDayne

facehugger99 wrote: »

I've a better idea that will be simpler.

1. Don't act like an arsehole.

Again, more sidestepping.

Would you support the program. Yes or No?

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

I've a better idea that will be simpler.

1. Don't act like an arsehole.

You don't think there will be drunk young girls clambering to get into nightclub VIP areas tonight?

So deluded. :rolleyes:

Roger Hassenforder

Mrsmum wrote: »

You suspect incorrectly. And I also have four teenagers.
See joe40's post to explain what actually happened.

I strongly doubt you have any regular engagement with anyone between the ages of 14 to 24 such is the shock and outrage youre affecting at behaviour. If you do, theyre masking their norms very well.
BTW, I dont condone it. But i just dont condemn it whether as a display of moral indignation and outrage, or genuine outrage.

FrancieBrady

BBC reporter saying there that this is not really a sacking, it is a mutual agreement involving a financial settlement.

A fudge to quieten the mob. And they seem to have bought it.

Mrsmum

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I strongly doubt you have any regular engagement with anyone between the ages of 14 to 24 such is the shock and outrage youre affecting at behaviour. If you do, theyre masking their norms very well.
BTW, I dont condone it. But i just dont condemn it whether as a display of moral indignation and outrage, or genuine outrage.

With regard to my knowledge of teenagers and my family You are just wrong but like in a lot of things you think you're right. I am well able for the cut and trust of modern life and teenagers but I also know when it steps over the line and I'm not alone in knowing that. Some day you might grow up and know too.

tigger123

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You don't think there will be drunk young girls clambering to get into nightclub VIP areas tonight?

So deluded. :rolleyes:

Even if there are, it doesn't mean it's ok to treat them the way Paddy Jackson and his friends did.

Mrsmum

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

I strongly doubt you have any regular engagement with anyone between the ages of 14 to 24 such is the shock and outrage youre affecting at behaviour. If you do, theyre masking their norms very well.
BTW, I dont condone it. But i just dont condemn it whether as a display of moral indignation and outrage, or genuine outrage.

Love the way you put the top age AT 24 there just to cover the stupid behaviour of PJ.

FrancieBrady

tigger123 wrote: »

Even if there are, it doesn't mean it's ok to treat them the way Paddy Jackson and his friends did.

What, make sure she got home safely after a night of consensual sex?

ArthurDayne

Mrsmum wrote: »

With regard to my knowledge of teenagers and my family You are just wrong but like in a lot of things you think you're right. I am well able for the cut and trust of modern life and teenagers but I also know when it steps over the line and I'm not alone in knowing that. Some day you might grow up and know too.

MrsMum, seeing as Facehugger doesn't appear too willing to explore the theme further -- perhaps I might ask if you would be willing to answer on the below hypothesis. Would you be supportive of the following National Programme being implemented?

1. All citizens of the State shall submit their phones and other electronic devices to the nearest Garda station;

2. All devices will be screened along a rubric created by a panel of experts on public morality and decency. All social media companies will be legally ordered to store messages which are deleted so that they can be retrieved.;

3. Screening will include ALL private correspondence, including with family, spouses and friends.

4. All those who are found to have used terms or language in private conversation that can be deemed offensive to the public or a section of the public shall be automatically liable for expulsion from their jobs.

In one fell swoop -- all those who have used degrading and offensive language will be cast out of their jobs. Only the morally righteous shall remain and the workplaces of Ireland shall be purified. The battle to embed political correctness and moral perfection in private conversations will have been won.

Would you support this program?

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

BBC reporter saying there that this is not really a sacking, it is a mutual agreement involving a financial settlement.

A fudge to quieten the mob. And they seem to have bought it.

The bitter is strong in this one.:D

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

The bitter is strong in this one.:D

Nothing bitter about it. I'm delighted they got paid to leave and let the sponsors/IRFU engage in the con that they sacked them.

Joke is on you and yours facehugger.

pjohnson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nothing bitter about it. I'm delighted they got paid to leave and let the sponsors/IRFU engage in the con that they sacked them.

Joke is on you and yours facehugger.

I wonder will facehugger and co. go back to wanting Rory Best removed from Ireland duty.

meeeeh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You don't think there will be drunk young girls clambering to get into nightclub VIP areas tonight?

So deluded. :rolleyes:

And what is wrong with that. Are you saying they are asking for it. And btw what is your obsession with VIP areas, should only men be allowed into them?

DavidLyons_

facehugger99 wrote: »

FrancieBrady wrote: »

BBC reporter saying there that this is not really a sacking, it is a mutual agreement involving a financial settlement.

A fudge to quieten the mob. And they seem to have bought it.

The bitter is strong in this one.:D

Oh the fcuking irony.

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

And what is wrong with that. Are you saying they are asking for it. And btw what is your obsession with VIP areas, should only men be allowed into them?

Ah the indignant feminist rant. Never imply that your own personal responsibility is part of the reason you may end up in potentially dangerous situations because that is anti women something something. :rolleyes:

I referred to VIP areas with men in them because this is where the night in question began. Calm down on that one.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Nothing bitter about it. I'm delighted they got paid to leave and let the sponsors/IRFU engage in the con that they sacked them.

Joke is on you and yours facehugger.

What joke is that Francie lad?

I'd be surprised if their contracts hadn't been paid up - would be quite normal under the circumstances.

The main thing as far as I'm concerned is that they never represent Ireland again. Good luck to them in France or wherever they wash up - none of my business, as long as they never wear the green again I'm quite happy.

joe40

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Mrsmum wrote: »

With regard to my knowledge of teenagers and my family You are just wrong but like in a lot of things you think you're right. I am well able for the cut and trust of modern life and teenagers but I also know when it steps over the line and I'm not alone in knowing that. Some day you might grow up and know too.

MrsMum, seeing as Facehugger doesn't appear too willing to explore the theme further -- perhaps I might ask if you would be willing to answer on the below hypothesis. Would you be supportive of the following National Programme being implemented?

1. All citizens of the State shall submit their phones and other electronic devices to the nearest Garda station;

2. All devices will be screened along a rubric created by a panel of experts on public morality and decency. All social media companies will be legally ordered to store messages which are deleted so that they can be retrieved.;

3. Screening will include ALL private correspondence, including with family, spouses and friends.

4. All those who are found to have used terms or language in private conversation that can be deemed offensive to the public or a section of the public shall be automatically liable for expulsion from their jobs.

In one fell swoop -- all those who have used degrading and offensive language will be cast out of their jobs. Only the morally righteous shall remain and the workplaces of Ireland shall be purified. The battle to embed political correctness and moral perfection in private conversations will have been won.

Would you support this program?

This is really not complicated. Your privacy is important and should be protected as indeed it is.
If your private conversations become public, for whatever reason, you have to own those comments. They are a reflection on you.
If they are offensive, damaging, illegal you have to own the consequences.
The fact they started out as private is no defence.
Just to be clear i'm talking about this in general, not this case specifically.

meeeeh

ArthurDayne wrote: »

Would you support this program?

Stop with false equations. You are not getting a response because your manifesto is so wide of the mark it's not worth responding.

FrancieBrady

sugarman wrote: »

Isn't that pretty much the case in all professional sporting contracts? They'd legally be entitled to see out their contracts or come to a settlement . They can only ever terminate a players contract if it's in breach of club rules.

Yes, but the IRFU are clearly trying to give the impression that they sacked them. ('Revoked their contracts')
Seems they didn't, they negotiated an early end to their contracts. Entirely different thing.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, but the IRFU are clearly trying to give the impression that they sacked them. ('Revoked their contracts')
Seems they didn't, they negotiated an early end to their contracts. Entirely different thing.

Sure Francie - you 'won'.

*Slow hand clap

meeeeh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah the indignant feminist rant. Never imply that your own personal responsibility is part of the reason you may end up in potentially dangerous situations because that is anti women something something. :rolleyes:.

I still don't get you, women should not go into VIP areas or should not drink because they would potentially get raped?

Roger Hassenforder

Mrsmum wrote: »

Love the way you put the top age AT 24 there just to cover the stupid behaviour of PJ.

Mrsmum wrote: »

Love the way you put the top age AT 24 there just to cover the stupid behaviour of PJ.

Actually i used it as a nice 10yr span to cover the years where young adults are most susceptible to gob****ery and behaviour, their later years would acknowlege included some moments which were possibly not their finest hours.

As the teens/complainant would say
"Lolz"
Did you just think of that riposte too late after premature posting precluded its insertion ?

At least we can agree it was stupid though.
Not criminal, not deserving of having his life ruined.

givyjoe

facehugger99 wrote: »

Jesus man - why don't you knock the mansplaining ****e off? - it's boring to to keep spamming the thread with your repetitious waffle.

Whereas are your 'insightful', biased and bitter contributions are lighting it up.

meeeeh

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Yes, but the IRFU are clearly trying to give the impression that they sacked them. ('Revoked their contracts')
Seems they didn't, they negotiated an early end to their contracts. Entirely different thing.

It's called paying off someone because you would rather pay for them not to play for you than have them in your team.

Mrsmum

ArthurDayne wrote: »

MrsMum, seeing as Facehugger doesn't appear too willing to explore the theme further -- perhaps I might ask if you would be willing to answer on the below hypothesis. Would you be supportive of the following National Programme being implemented?

1. All citizens of the State shall submit their phones and other electronic devices to the nearest Garda station;

2. All devices will be screened along a rubric created by a panel of experts on public morality and decency. All social media companies will be legally ordered to store messages which are deleted so that they can be retrieved.;

3. Screening will include ALL private correspondence, including with family, spouses and friends.

4. All those who are found to have used terms or language in private conversation that can be deemed offensive to the public or a section of the public shall be automatically liable for expulsion from their jobs.

In one fell swoop -- all those who have used degrading and offensive language will be cast out of their jobs. Only the morally righteous shall remain and the workplaces of Ireland shall b.ction in private conversations will have been won.

Would you support this program?

I have no interest whatsoever in delving into what anyone does in their private life but when it becomes known to me then I will have an opinion just as everyone else will. Their behaviour invaded my home for weeks on end. I didn't go looking for it in this case and I won't ever go looking for it. So bad was it that reporters warned us that we should protect little ears from hearing.There was literally no getting away from it and you would want to be braindead not to have a viewpoint. My viewpoint wasn't favourable to them. Their employers and sponsors also thought they lacked respect and integrity. It's over now. Next case stands on it's own merits.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

What joke is that Francie lad?

The joke is that you are delighted they were sacked.

wexie wrote:

Oh look at that....they've been sacked

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43766959

facehugger wrote:

Hardly surprising.

Great news all the same.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106723513&postcount=820
The fact is they weren't. They negotiated a financial reward to end their contracts early.

ProfessorPlum

Mrsmum wrote: »

You suspect incorrectly. And I also have four teenagers.
See joe40's post to explain what actually happened.

You need Joe to mansplain it for you? :rolleyes::D

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

I still don't get you, women should not go into VIP areas or should not drink because they would potentially get raped?

Some women need to have personal responsibility and not end up drunk and alone in strangers bedrooms.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The joke is that you are delighted they were sacked.



https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106723513&postcount=820
The fact is they weren't. They negotiated a financial reward to end their contracts early.

Really grasping at straws now - quite sad to witness.