Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Mrsmum

mfceiling wrote: »

I hope someone never brings a court case against you that you win and are left with court costs.

That's the system and the exact same thing would happen to me or you in similar circumstances. He isn't left with the court costs, he has to pay the lawyer he engaged to do a job for him. Why don't you gofundhim.

tretorn

The women who sleep with sports star use the men as much as the men who use them.
The women chase these men for the celebrety factor, they could easily find a nice gentleman at the bar but he cant attract women.
Leave the women who are happy to play threesomes to it, you either have commonsense and respect for your body or hou dont.
PJ and men like him arent pretending to be anything other than what they are and its clear now they have no problem attracting women. Dara Florence and her friends are stunning women, they could have left the night club with their choice of men and they freely choose to go to Jacksons house, probably not for Jackson himself but because he was in the VIP section.

Faugheen

tretorn wrote: »

The women who sleep with sports star use the men as much as the men who use them.
The women chase these men for the celebrety factor, they could easily find a nice gentleman at the bar but he cant attract women.
Leave the women who are happy to play threesomes to it, you either have commonsense and respect for your body or hou dont.
PJ and men like him arent pretending to be anything other than what they are and its clear now they have no problem attracting women. Dara Florence and her friends are stunning women, they could have left the night club with their choice of men and they freely choose to go to Jacksons house, probably not for Jackson himself but because he was in the VIP section.

There's one problem with your post.

One woman in this case clearly wasn't happy with what happened that night. Should she be ignored?

I mean, do Jackson and Olding's statements mean nothing in this case? If some women are happy to do that then fine, but that's clearly not what we're talking about here so your big long spiel of irrelevance is exactly what it is.

You're just short of saying she was asking for it here. Would you like to confirm that is your true sentiment? Happy to be proven wrong but your post reeks of it.

Happy for you to clarify.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

That's the system and the exact same thing would happen to me or you in similar circumstances. He isn't left with the court costs, he has to pay the lawyer he engaged to do a job for him. Why don't you gofundhim.

The 'system' allows him to apply for funds to offset his substantial costs. Get over it.

There are some around here who would bring back hanging if they could.

givyjoe

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair you don't have to be found guilty of anything to find your career in ruins because of your own actions. For example Mel Gibson was never convicted of anti semitism.

People here know that I believe they raped the girl. However even if you accept every single word the players said as true they still acted badly. There's a load of people who wouldn't want to be associated with that. And if a sponsor supports them then it's seen as supporting and endorsing their actions.

And for what it matters, I know the question isn't directed at me but yes, I hold myself to those standards. I've never referred to women using the language they did. I've never been part of a conversation like their whatsapp messages. I've never treated a woman the way they did.

Are you for real? What did PJ say that was even remotely comparable to Mel Gibson. I've read the messages that were posted in the article earlier, he referred to spit roasting..aka consensual group sex... do you find 'spit roasting' morally reprehensible similar to Anti-antisemitism? PJ is bearing the brunt of what was said by the other lads.

The question wasn't aimed at you, correct. The question was aimed at the hypocritical poster who holds PJ and the lads to a higher standard than themselves.

I'm sure you're a saintly member of society who has never wronged, spoke ill of anyone or disrespected them of course.

And yes, you have specifically said you believed they raped her, despite the evidence to the contrary and judgment by you know, a jury. :rolleyes:

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Numerous polls online suggest otherwise my friend. Whether you want to believe them or not is your prerogative. I wouldn't put full faith in them either but it gives you some idea of public opinion on the issue. Basically I have just as much proof as those suggesting more want them back. They can't prove it to the contrary so why is your lecture only aimed at me?

And one sponsor has in fact said they're keeping an eye on the situation, in case you haven't noticed. Fact is, while sponsors were targeting the rugby community. The sport has been a major talking point in Irish society in the last couple of weeks because of this trial, whether you like it or not. With the sport in such a negative spotlight, sponsors will pay attention. Like I said, for anyone to deny this has their head in the sand.

Basically, I'm putting forward arguments and you're just dismissing them as if they don't matter.

They do, and I reckon there's going to be a very angry 'mob' here if they're not allowed play in Ireland again.

I think they will head off with full pockets and play abroad actually. And the matter will be fudged by the IRFU and sponsors.

You won't get a dramatic sacking or humiliation. And we will all get back to enjoying the game.

Appledreams15

Really it is not to do with if they were found guilty or innocent right now, they were found innocent and we all respect that.
It is to do with their language and behaviour aganst women.
The sponsors are another factor to consider: their main sponsor has now said this:
"As a sponsor of Ulster Rugby, Bank of Ireland is highly concerned regarding the serious behaviour and conduct issues which have emerged as a result of the recent high profile trial," read a Bank of Ireland statement.

"The Bank has formally conveyed these concerns to the CEO of Ulster Rugby.".

Do families want to go and watch a rugby team that has members that:
called women sluts and calls women merry-go-rounds.
It is not very family friendly. I can see why sponsors would start to question it.

Appledreams15

givyjoe wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

To be fair you don't have to be found guilty of anything to find your career in ruins because of your own actions. For example Mel Gibson was never convicted of anti semitism.

People here know that I believe they raped the girl. However even if you accept every single word the players said as true they still acted badly. There's a load of people who wouldn't want to be associated with that. And if a sponsor supports them then it's seen as supporting and endorsing their actions.

And for what it matters, I know the question isn't directed at me but yes, I hold myself to those standards. I've never referred to women using the language they did. I've never been part of a conversation like their whatsapp messages. I've never treated a woman the way they did.

Are you for real? What did PJ say that was even remotely comparable to Mel Gibson. I've read the messages that were posted in the article earlier, he referred to spit roasting..aka consensual group sex... do you find 'spit roasting' morally reprehensible similar to Anti-antisemitism? PJ is bearing the brunt of what was said by the other lads.

The question wasn't aimed at you, correct. The question was aimed at the hypocritical poster who holds PJ and the lads to a higher standard than themselves.

I'm sure you're a saintly member of society who has never wronged, spoke ill of anyone or disrespected them of course.

And yes, you have specifically said you believed they raped her, despite the evidence to the contrary and judgment by you know, a jury. :rolleyes:

He also had blood all over his bed....fact from case

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

Numerous polls online suggest otherwise my friend. Whether you want to believe them or not is your prerogative. I wouldn't put full faith in them either but it gives you some idea of public opinion on the issue. Basically I have just as much proof as those suggesting more want them back. They can't prove it to the contrary so why is your lecture only aimed at me?

And one sponsor has in fact said they're keeping an eye on the situation, in case you haven't noticed. Fact is, while sponsors were targeting the rugby community. The sport has been a major talking point in Irish society in the last couple of weeks because of this trial, whether you like it or not. With the sport in such a negative spotlight, sponsors will pay attention. Like I said, for anyone to deny this has their head in the sand.

Basically, I'm putting forward arguments and you're just dismissing them as if they don't matter.

They do, and I reckon there's going to be a very angry 'mob' here if they're not allowed play in Ireland again.

I think they will head off with full pockets and play abroad actually. And the matter will be fudged by the IRFU and sponsors.

You won't get a dramatic sacking or humiliation. And we will all get back to enjoying the game.

I've said from the beginning that they'll end up abroad. Olding in England, Jackson in France is my guess.

I've also never said they'll get a public humiliation either. If they're leaving, Ulster and the IRFU will release a statement saying they're leaving and that will be that. For the IRFU and Ulster to make a big song and dance about it would be stupid. They want this sorry affair to be over as much as Jackson and Olding.

Genuinely don't know why you're attributing statements to me when I haven't said anything of the sort.

FrancieBrady

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Really it is not to do with if they were found guilty or innocent right now, they were found innocent and we all respect that.
It is to do with their language and behaviour aganst women.
The sponsors are another factor to consider: their main sponsor has now said this:
"As a sponsor of Ulster Rugby, Bank of Ireland is highly concerned regarding the serious behaviour and conduct issues which have emerged as a result of the recent high profile trial," read a Bank of Ireland statement.

"The Bank has formally conveyed these concerns to the CEO of Ulster Rugby.".

Do families want to go and watch a rugby team that has members that:
called women sluts and calls women merry-go-rounds.
It is not very family friendly. I can see why sponsors would start to question it.

Look at the pantheon of sportspeople who have behaved badly and then look at the sponsors still sponsoring the sports they are still playing.
Then get back to us.

The sponsors will fudge this like they generally always do.

Appledreams15

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Really it is not to do with if they were found guilty or innocent right now, they were found innocent and we all respect that.
It is to do with their language and behaviour aganst women.
The sponsors are another factor to consider: their main sponsor has now said this:
"As a sponsor of Ulster Rugby, Bank of Ireland is highly concerned regarding the serious behaviour and conduct issues which have emerged as a result of the recent high profile trial," read a Bank of Ireland statement.

"The Bank has formally conveyed these concerns to the CEO of Ulster Rugby.".

Do families want to go and watch a rugby team that has members that:
called women sluts and calls women merry-go-rounds.
It is not very family friendly. I can see why sponsors would start to question it.

Look at the pantheon of sportspeople who have behaved badly and then look at the sponsors still sponsoring the sports they are still playing.
Then get back to us.

The sponsors will fudge this like they generally always do.

I think the lads will go abroad. They'd probably be sensible to, considering the anger towards them here, and that they're still young and will get lucrative contracts abroad. Maybe they want to stay because of family.

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The 'system' allows him to apply for funds to offset his substantial costs. Get over it.

There are some around here who would bring back hanging if they could.

I couldn't care less about his bill and if he is entitled to get back some of it more power to him. If he's not, it's still his bill. I would have thought he would be saying his lawyer was worth every dime.

Zulu

Appledreams15 wrote: »

He also had blood all over his bed....fact from case

Really? Or just: some blood on his bed?

TomSweeney

I actually thought these guys were guilty at first but ...

During cross-examination by Brendan Kelly QC, representing Mr Jackson, Ms Florence was questioned about two statements provided to police after the alleged incident, in which she claimed the woman had not appeared distressed.

When asked by Mr Kelly if that remained her recollection, Ms Florence said: "100%."

The court heard that she did not have any concerns about what she saw in the bedroom.

convinced me otherwise...

_Whimsical_

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Look at the pantheon of sportspeople who have behaved badly and then look at the sponsors still sponsoring the sports they are still playing.
Then get back to us.

The sponsors will fudge this like they generally always do.

I don't think you're right on that. It may have been the case in the past but that sort of thing doesn't wash anymore. Companies like to be seen to take social responsibilities seriously now, or at least recognise that the public take it seriously and won't allow their brand be tarnished by association with such squalid, unacceptable attitudes. If these men had made equally vile slurs on the gay community and it was revealed in such a manner brand support would've been whipped away.
Women have much more spending power. I think brands will recognize that if they respond by withdrawing custom the burn will be too much. It's much easier to sacrifice a few horrible personalities who can kick a ball.

Venom

Mrsmum wrote: »

I couldn't care less about his bill and if he is entitled to get back some of it more power to him. If he's not, it's still his bill. I would have thought he would be saying his lawyer was worth every dime.

So if you yourself were accused of a pretty horrific crime and taking to court, only to be found not guilty after months of your name being dragged through the mud on various media formats and had a substantial bill from your legal team, you would be fine just paying it?

givyjoe

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Really it is not to do with if they were found guilty or innocent right now, they were found innocent and we all respect that.
It is to do with their language and behaviour aganst women.
The sponsors are another factor to consider: their main sponsor has now said this:
"As a sponsor of Ulster Rugby, Bank of Ireland is highly concerned regarding the serious behaviour and conduct issues which have emerged as a result of the recent high profile trial," read a Bank of Ireland statement.

"The Bank has formally conveyed these concerns to the CEO of Ulster Rugby.".

Do families want to go and watch a rugby team that has members that:
called women sluts and calls women merry-go-rounds.
It is not very family friendly. I can see why sponsors would start to question it.

Pull the other one :rolleyes:
There's any but respect for that fact on the previous thread or social media. #ibelieveher ring any bells?!

Appledreams15 wrote: »

He also had blood all over his bed....fact from case

And?

jm08

Venom wrote: »

So if you yourself were accused of a pretty horrific crime and taking to court, only to be found not guilty after months of your name being dragged through the mud on various media formats and had a substantial bill from your legal team, you would be fine just paying it?

Why didn't Jackson apply for legal aid like Olding did? Is it because legal aid would not pay for two counsels and a solicitor?

Mrsmum

Venom wrote: »

So if you yourself were accused of a pretty horrific crime and taking to court, only to be found not guilty after months of your name being dragged through the mud on various media formats and had a substantial bill from your legal team, you would be fine just paying it?

Yes. Can't be any clearer than that.
Be careful what you are wishing for though because many criminals can afford the very best top lawyers who get them off every day of the week. When such people are found 'not guilty' do you want the state ie you paying their bill ?

_Whimsical_

TomSweeney wrote: »

I actually thought these guys were guilty at first but ...




convinced me otherwise...

Were you aware that in her first statement to police Dara said that when she went upstairs she heard "aggressive male moaning", when asked if she meant a "sensual moaning" she responded no.
She later completely changed that statement to say she just heard sex.

She said she was 100% sure she saw PJ having penetrative sex with the woman accusing him of rape. PJ says he never had sex with her.

Something prompted her to open the door on what she believed was people having sex and to walk far enough into the bedroom to see just who was there, she thought it might have been her friend Emily.

Do you wonder why she would have done that?

Would you walk in if you believed your friend was having sex?

Or would you be more likely to only push that door open and walk right into the room if you heard something that made you worry that your female friend was in distress?
That's the only circumstance I'd do it in. I'd have to be very very concerned before I'd interrupt someone.

In the trial Paddy Jackson said that despite him having sex with the young lady involved in the case that is real romantic interest lay in Dara.

His behaviour didn't suggest that.

I can't help but wonder if perhaps Dara's head was turned by the subsequent attentions of a rugby star.
Or maybe she liked him too and was annoyed at that what she saw and happier to believe the girl played an active role.

For me her behaviour, walking in on a friend having sex, and her testimony do not add up.

givyjoe

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yes. Can't be any clearer than that.
Be careful what you are wishing for though because many criminals can afford the very best top lawyers who get them off every day of the week. When such people are found 'not guilty' do you want the state ie you paying their bill ?

So a potentially innocent person should be financially crippled defending themselves should they? I think you're being more than a little disingenuous saying you wouldn't have a problem footing a legal bill for a crime you didn't commit.

Be honest, what you really mean is, you don't have a problem with PJ footing the cost for the legal bills in this case.

jm08

Francie - here is written content of CEO of Rape Crisis Centre on Morning Ireland.

Rugby must deal with ‘derogatory’ behaviour - Rape Crisis Centre
Chief executive says calls for Jackson and Olding to be reinstated are a ‘shame and a pity’


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rugby-must-deal-with-derogatory-behaviour-rape-crisis-centre-1.3459365

Grayson

givyjoe wrote: »

Are you for real? What did PJ say that was even remotely comparable to Mel Gibson. I've read the messages that were posted in the article earlier, he referred to spit roasting..aka consensual group sex... do you find 'spit roasting' morally reprehensible similar to Anti-antisemitism? PJ is bearing the brunt of what was said by the other lads.

The question wasn't aimed at you, correct. The question was aimed at the hypocritical poster who holds PJ and the lads to a higher standard than themselves.

I'm sure you're a saintly member of society who has never wronged, spoke ill of anyone or disrespected them of course.

And yes, you have specifically said you believed they raped her, despite the evidence to the contrary and judgment by you know, a jury. :rolleyes:

I never said that what they said is equivalent to an anti semitic rant. I was pointing out, and I said I was pointing out, that people can lose jobs, sponsorship etc for something that wasn't a crime.

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I was very clear when I said that people have found their career in ruins because of something they did that wasn't a crime.

And no, I'm not saintly. I've made mistakes. That doesn't mean I'm a cnut though. It doesn't mean I treat women like sh1t.

Their behaviour and their language was degrading and offensive.

Grayson

jm08 wrote: »

Francie - here is written content of CEO of Rape Crisis Centre on Morning Ireland.

Rugby must deal with ‘derogatory’ behaviour - Rape Crisis Centre
Chief executive says calls for Jackson and Olding to be reinstated are a ‘shame and a pity’


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rugby-must-deal-with-derogatory-behaviour-rape-crisis-centre-1.3459365

You sure that's the same interview Francie was talking about? There's no mention of men being evil/bad/etc...

Mrsmum

givyjoe wrote: »

So a potentially innocent person should be financially crippled defending themselves should they? I think you're being more than a little disingenuous saying you wouldn't have a problem footing a legal bill for a crime you didn't commit.

Be honest, what you really mean is, you don't have a problem with PJ footing the cost for the legal bills in this case.

Excuse me. I am absolutely honest. If there is a way for him to not pay his bill, I couldn't care less about that either. There must be people all the time that lose their cases because they can't afford the best or even close. If you do engage the best, that your (or his in this case )business. But don't be boohooing afterwards.

givyjoe

Mrsmum wrote: »

Excuse me. I am absolutely honest. If there is a way for him to not pay his bill, I couldn't care less about that either. There must be people all the time that lose their cases because they can't afford the best or even close. If you do engage the best, that your (or his in this case )business. But don't be boohooing afterwards.

Ok, honestly tell us why you would have no problem paying legal bills relating to a crime you didn't commit?

Boohooing?! Christ, god forbid you're ever accused of a crime you didn't commit and get left with a hefty legal bill. I suspect you'll change your tune then.

givyjoe

Grayson wrote: »

I never said that what they said is equivalent to an anti semitic rant. I was pointing out, and I said I was pointing out, that people can lose jobs, sponsorship etc for something that wasn't a crime.

Please don't misrepresent what I said. I was very clear when I said that people have found their career in ruins because of something they did that wasn't a crime.

And no, I'm not saintly. I've made mistakes. That doesn't mean I'm a cnut though. It doesn't mean I treat women like sh1t.

Their behaviour and their language was degrading and offensive.

It is quite clearly not misrepresenting what you said, you referenced Mel Gibson, not me.

How do we know you're not a cnut though? Cos you say so? You say their.. im specifically referencing PJ, what did he say that was degrading and offensive? Again, they're are many people who engage in group sex (of both genders) and neither party see themselves as being degraded. How did PJ specifically treat this particular woman like sh1t?

Are you referring to the use of the word 'sluts' as being offensive? Do you find the alleged victims description of Dana Florence as "acting slutty" equally offensive?

facehugger99

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

For me her behaviour, walking in on a friend having sex, and her testimony do not add up.

Some of her testimony could be seen as very self-serving. Perhaps she was concerned about what she heard outside the door, perhaps she was even concerned about what she saw in the room, but obviously if she said this, the focus would suddenly turn onto her and why she didn't do anything at the time. It's a difficult position for her to be in.

Mrsmum

givyjoe wrote: »

Ok, honestly tell us why you would have no problem paying legal bills relating to a crime you didn't commit?

Boohooing?! Christ, god forbid you're ever accused of a crime you didn't commit and get left with a hefty legal bill. I suspect you'll change your tune then.

Seriously. you are boring me now. We all have to cut our cloth and if I was accused of something whereby I needed legal representation I would chose one that I could afford. If I could afford nothing I would apply for legal aid and put up with whoever I got. If I thought I needed the big boys or gals I would beg, borrow or steal so to speak to afford them. And if I was found not guilty I would say "didn't I do the right thing engaging X to represent me" and I would never for one moment think someone else should pay my bill from my chosen expensive lawyer.

givyjoe

facehugger99 wrote: »

Some of her testimony could be seen as very self-serving. Perhaps she was concerned about what she heard outside the door, perhaps she was even concerned about what she saw in the room, but obviously if she said this, the focus would suddenly turn onto her and why she didn't do anything at the time. It's a difficult position for her to be in.

Yeah, really self serving consider the abuse she's been receiving :rolleyes:

tretorn

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Were you aware that in her first statement to police Dara said that when she went upstairs she heard "aggressive male moaning", when asked if she meant a "sensual moaning" she responded no.
She later completely changed that statement to say she just heard sex.

She said she was 100% sure she saw PJ having penetrative sex with the woman accusing him of rape. PJ says he never had sex with her.

Something prompted her to open the door on what she believed was people having sex and to walk far enough into the bedroom to see just who was there, she thought it might have been her friend Emily.

Do you wonder why she would have done that?

Would you walk in if you believed your friend was having sex?

Or would you be more likely to only push that door open and walk right into the room if you heard something that made you worry that your female friend was in distress?
That's the only circumstance I'd do it in. I'd have to be very very concerned before I'd interrupt someone.

In the trial Paddy Jackson said that despite him having sex with the young lady involved in the case that is real romantic interest lay in Dara.

His behaviour didn't suggest that.

I can't help but wonder if perhaps Dara's head was turned by the subsequent attentions of a rugby star.
Or maybe she liked him too and was annoyed at that what she saw and happier to believe the girl played an active role.

For me her behaviour, walking in on a friend having sex, and her testimony do not add up.

PJ waved Dara in, he wasnt a bit concerned. Olding was spreadesgled with the womans head between his legs, the police were told oldings hands were on the victims head, Dara said they werent.
Dara was 100 per cent sure no woman was under threat in that house.
If she had any doubt she wouldnt have left her friend alone there.She left and the next the friend heard from her pals was the text or call saying Dara had seen a threesome.
I dont know how anyone cant understand how the jury arrived at their decision, to be honest Im surprised it took them four hours to come back with the verdict.

Grayson

givyjoe wrote: »

So a potentially innocent person should be financially crippled defending themselves should they? I think you're being more than a little disingenuous saying you wouldn't have a problem footing a legal bill for a crime you didn't commit.

Be honest, what you really mean is, you don't have a problem with PJ footing the cost for the legal bills in this case.

I'd allow people to claim money back but means test it. There's no reason a person with a hundred million in the bank should be able to claim back. On the other hand there's no reason someone should go broke.

I'd like to see some kind of self regulation within the legal professions to insure that their charges don't get too excessive. But that's never going to happen.

givyjoe

Mrsmum wrote: »

Seriously. you are boring me now. We all have to cut our cloth and if I was accused of something whereby I needed legal representation I would chose one that I could afford. If I could afford nothing I would apply for legal aid and put up with whoever I got. If I thought I needed the big boys or gals I would beg, borrow or steal so to speak to afford them. And if I was found not guilty I would say "didn't I do the right thing engaging X to represent me" and I would never for one moment think someone else should pay my bill from my chosen expensive lawyer.

If I'm boring you, dont bother replying with disingenuous drivel.

TomSweeney

_Whimsical_ wrote: »

Were you aware that in her first statement to police Dara said that when she went upstairs she heard "aggressive male moaning", when asked if she meant a "sensual moaning" she responded no.
She later completely changed that statement to say she just heard sex.

She said she was 100% sure she saw PJ having penetrative sex with the woman accusing him of rape. PJ says he never had sex with her.

Something prompted her to open the door on what she believed was people having sex and to walk far enough into the bedroom to see just who was there, she thought it might have been her friend Emily.

Do you wonder why she would have done that?

Would you walk in if you believed your friend was having sex?

Or would you be more likely to only push that door open and walk right into the room if you heard something that made you worry that your female friend was in distress?
That's the only circumstance I'd do it in. I'd have to be very very concerned before I'd interrupt someone.

In the trial Paddy Jackson said that despite him having sex with the young lady involved in the case that is real romantic interest lay in Dara.

His behaviour didn't suggest that.

I can't help but wonder if perhaps Dara's head was turned by the subsequent attentions of a rugby star.
Or maybe she liked him too and was annoyed at that what she saw and happier to believe the girl played an active role.

For me her behaviour, walking in on a friend having sex, and her testimony do not add up.

Jesus.

Now I'm confused again.

Fann Linn

facehugger99 wrote: »

Some of her testimony could be seen as very self-serving. Perhaps she was concerned about what she heard outside the door, perhaps she was even concerned about what she saw in the room, but obviously if she said this, the focus would suddenly turn onto her and why she didn't do anything at the time. It's a difficult position for her to be in.

Making assumptions and second guessing now about the main witness.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

I couldn't care less about his bill and if he is entitled to get back some of it more power to him. If he's not, it's still his bill. I would have thought he would be saying his lawyer was worth every dime.

Again the fairly petty and petulant insinuation that they got away with something. Sad

Mrsmum

facehugger99 wrote: »

Some of her testimony could be seen as very self-serving. Perhaps she was concerned about what she heard outside the door, perhaps she was even concerned about what she saw in the room, but obviously if she said this, the focus would suddenly turn onto her and why she didn't do anything at the time. It's a difficult position for her to be in.

I didn't see this anywhere but were the lights on or off in the bedroom ?

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Again the fairly petty and petulant insinuation that they got away with something. Sad

You're sad seeing what isn't there. See following post where I said If I had just got a not guilty verdict myself I would say "wasn't I right to chose X barrister". Nothing to do with getting away with it, just relief not to be behind bars.

Grayson

givyjoe wrote: »

It is quite clearly not misrepresenting what you said, you referenced Mel Gibson, not me.

How do we know you're not a cnut though? Cos you say so? You say their.. im specifically referencing PJ, what did he say that was degrading and offensive? Again, they're are many people who engage in group sex (of both genders) and neither party see themselves as being degraded. How did PJ specifically treat this particular woman like sh1t?

Are you referring to the use of the word 'sluts' as being offensive? Do you find the alleged victims description of Dana Florence as "acting slutty" equally offensive?

Yes I mentioned mel gibson. I never said what Gibson said and what the players said were equivalent. I mentioned it specifically to show how someone can say something that ruins their career but not commit a crime in the process.

Go back and show where I made an equivalency. If I'd done it I would be defending it. There's no reason for me to say something to immediately deny it.

FrancieBrady

jm08 wrote: »

Francie - here is written content of CEO of Rape Crisis Centre on Morning Ireland.

Rugby must deal with ‘derogatory’ behaviour - Rape Crisis Centre
Chief executive says calls for Jackson and Olding to be reinstated are a ‘shame and a pity’


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/rugby-must-deal-with-derogatory-behaviour-rape-crisis-centre-1.3459365

I thought it was Newstalk I heard her on. But I switch between RYE and NT on the commute, so could be wrong.

Basically all the male contributions were bad, from the defendant's to Willie John to male rugby and not a word, or single syllable about women's responsibilities

Fairly clear agenda there and it isn't to prevent rape primarily.

alchemist33

This "guilty even though proven not guilty" is some slippery slope. Having been found not guilty, and then presumably innocent ("innocent until proven guilty"), what we're left with is group sex and some very disrespectful private messages. And for this, the Bank of Ireland and a lot of people want them to lose their jobs.

So where does this end? If the BOI are so concerned about the content of people's messages, shouldn't they be looking for the private messages of all their employees? Should BOI management be allowing the public to see what they send privately to people they know? If they're going to be consistent, then they should.

givyjoe

Grayson wrote: »

Yes I mentioned mel gibson. I never said what Gibson said and what the players said were equivalent. I mentioned it specifically to show how someone can say something that ruins their career but not commit a crime in the process.

Go back and show where I made an equivalency. If I'd done it I would be defending it. There's no reason for me to say something to immediately deny it.

But that's my point, they're not equivalent so not relevant.

meeeeh

alchemist33 wrote: »

This "guilty even though proven not guilty" is some slippery slope. Having been found not guilty, and then presumably innocent ("innocent until proven guilty"), what we're left with is group sex and some very disrespectful private messages. And for this, the Bank of Ireland and a lot of people want them to lose their jobs.

So where does this end? If the BOI are so concerned about the content of people's messages, shouldn't they be looking for the private messages of all their employees? Should BOI management be allowing the public to see what they send privately to people they know? If they're going to be consistent, then they should.

I think where it ends is that I don't want my son to idolize men who treat women only as a piece of meet to be passed around and label them as slut. I don't want my daughter to be labelled a slut by man she sleeps with. I don't want her leaving his place crying and bleeding. And I certainly don't want my kids to think it's ever ok to have a laugh at the expense of someone else's distress.

I don't want to police people's private life but if their toxic attitudes spill into public life then don't expect me to applaud them. If they want to work in a call centre or cleaning or some anonymous job then I am sure they will be fine but they are not entitled to represent their country and be idolized by millions.

Grayson

givyjoe wrote: »

But that's my point, they're not equivalent so not relevant.

The situation is similar even if the content isn't. They don't have to be exactly the same. I made that clear as well.

FrancieBrady

meeeeh wrote: »

I think where it ends is that I don't want my son to idolize men who treat women only as a piece of meet to be passed around and label them as slut. I don't want my daughter to be labelled a slut by man she sleeps with. I don't want her leaving his place crying and bleeding. And I certainly don't want my kids to think it's ever ok to have a laugh at the expense of someone else's distress.

I don't want to police people's private life but if their toxic attitudes spill into public life then don't expect me to applaud them. If they want to work in a call centre or cleaning or some anonymous job then I am sure they will be fine but they are not entitled to represent their country and be idolized by millions.

Will you tell your son it is stupid to put people on pedestals just because they have talent with a ball? Will you tell your daughter not to get footless drunk and end up in strangers bedrooms?

Will you tell them that if they make a mistake their careers are basically over and that one of their parents proudly saw to it that a number of people's careers ended?

Grayson

alchemist33 wrote: »

This "guilty even though proven not guilty" is some slippery slope. Having been found not guilty, and then presumably innocent ("innocent until proven guilty"), what we're left with is group sex and some very disrespectful private messages. And for this, the Bank of Ireland and a lot of people want them to lose their jobs.

So where does this end? If the BOI are so concerned about the content of people's messages, shouldn't they be looking for the private messages of all their employees? Should BOI management be allowing the public to see what they send privately to people they know? If they're going to be consistent, then they should.

Bank of Ireland do have rules on what employees can say and do. Sending a message like their whatsapp using company resources or during company time would involve instant dismissal.

Using a freedom of information request you can request to see any communications between bank of ireland employees that mention you.

It's even more strict for people who are public figures. They are being paid to be representatives of a company. As such if they commit any actions that may not reflect the values of the company they can face disciplinary measures.

I said it before, could you imagine a company like BoI maintaining a relationship with someone who had made an anti semitic rant or was found to be sending anti semitic messages? I mention that because although it's not the same (I have to add that disclaimer for people who don't understand what an example is) you can see how someones actions can affect their employment.

take OJ Simpson. Not guilty of a crime but had sponsorships cut because of his image problems.

jm08

alchemist33 wrote: »

This "guilty even though proven not guilty" is some slippery slope. Having been found not guilty, and then presumably innocent ("innocent until proven guilty"), what we're left with is group sex and some very disrespectful private messages. And for this, the Bank of Ireland and a lot of people want them to lose their jobs.

So where does this end? If the BOI are so concerned about the content of people's messages, shouldn't they be looking for the private messages of all their employees? Should BOI management be allowing the public to see what they send privately to people they know? If they're going to be consistent, then they should.

CEO (Michael Sodan) resigned a couple of years ago because he accessed a porn site from his desk which was against company policy.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2004/0530/50702-boi/

givyjoe

Grayson wrote: »

Bank of Ireland do have rules on what employees can say and do. Sending a message like their whatsapp using company resources or during company time would involve instant dismissal.

Using a freedom of information request you can request to see any communications between bank of ireland employees that mention you.

It's even more strict for people who are public figures. They are being paid to be representatives of a company. As such if they commit any actions that may not reflect the values of the company they can face disciplinary measures.

I said it before, could you imagine a company like BoI maintaining a relationship with someone who had made an anti semitic rant or was found to be sending anti semitic messages? I mention that because although it's not the same (I have to add that disclaimer for people who don't understand what an example is) you can see how someones actions can affect their employment.

take OJ Simpson. Not guilty of a crime but had sponsorships cut because of his image problems.

Sweet sweet irony.:rolleyes: You make a pathetic jab and AGAIN, use a ridiculous example. OJ did commit the murder (everyone knows it) hence why he wrote the book "If i did murder them.. this is how id do it" His sponsorship were cut because he's a murderer. As we now know, the glove didn't fit, because it shrank. OJ was also successfully sued in a Civil Case for the murders. I'd wager my life savings that the complainant won't be doing likewise successfully. Perhaps you can choose less ludicrous examples.

alchemist33

jm08 wrote: »

CEO (Michael Sodan) resigned a couple of years ago because he accessed a porn site from his desk which was against company policy.

https://www.rte.ie/news/business/2004/0530/50702-boi/

But, as with the point above, that's for things done at work or using work equipment. Not private messages unconnected to work.

facehugger99

Grayson wrote: »

Bank of Ireland do have rules on what employees can say and do. Sending a message like their whatsapp using company resources or during company time would involve instant dismissal.
.

Never put anything in an email or text message that you aren't happy to read aloud to your family and colleagues.

It's a very sensible rule to live by.

People thinking their texts are private, - they're not.