Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

givyjoe

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm not the one questioning her evidence and saying it makes no sense for her to react like that, you are.

You admit you're not an expert but yet you're trying to say that what her account of being raped is makes no sense, can you not see that?

You refuse to acknowledge the idea that victims of rape don't always think rationally. It's like if a group of people were to jump you. Some people can find a way out of that situation, others let it happen. Rape is very similar in that sense.

You say that neither of us are experts yet you're the one trying to discredit her evidence based on what some rape victims do.

You have no idea what her thinking was that night and you've no idea what it's like to experience rape, so you can't possibly say whether her account makes sense or not.

I'm saying she did think rationally, do you not? Who wants their threesome filmed.

skearnsot

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sorry for being coarse, but she could hardly speak with her mouth full.

I’ve said that myself numerous times - however it was in the right place should she feel the desire to inflict pain on him

Silentcorner

skearnsot wrote: »

I’ve said that myself numerous times - however it was in the right place should she feel the desire to inflict pain on him

Well, we are told victims of sexual assaults more often than not "let it happen"...do we have any reports of a victim biting a man attacking her?

hatrickpatrick

facehugger99 wrote: »

Yeah about that. The rest of us all got together and decided we thought different about it.

Sorry.

I wasn't aware of any consensus either in this thread or among the public at large, that private text messages among friends could constitute wrongdoing and that views like mine are in the minority. Can you cite an example of this?

Captain Obvious

Tell me how wrote: »

Facial expressions of and noises from participants would be two indicators I'd imagine.

Christ.

hatrickpatrick

Boulevardier wrote: »

It is completely unjust for someone to have their career destroyed because private comments happened to become public in the course of a trial, and particularly in the course of a trial in which they were found not guilty. It is also gross hypocrisy for "liberal" commentators to say that this is OK, which almost all the media have done.

The word "liberal" no longer actually means "liberal". Ten years ago, it was the ultraconservative religious right which wanted to clamp down on free speech particularly as it pertained to sexuality, porn, etc. Now it's the regressive left, who call themselves "liberal" despite being insufferably authoritarian.

Mrsmum

skearnsot wrote: »

I’ve said that myself numerous times - however it was in the right place should she feel the desire to inflict pain on him

I think one would expect to get a belt if one bit down hard.

Captain Obvious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The word "liberal" no longer actually means "liberal". Ten years ago, it was the ultraconservative religious right which wanted to clamp down on free speech particularly as it pertained to sexuality, porn, etc. Now it's the regressive left, who call themselves "liberal" despite being insufferably authoritarian.

Nonsense. That's just how people like to portray the word liberal to make people they disagree with seem unreasonable.

Sile Na Gig

skearnsot wrote: »

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Sorry for being coarse, but she could hardly speak with her mouth full.

I’ve said that myself numerous times - however it was in the right place should she feel the desire to inflict pain on him

If she’s literally scared stiff do you really think she’s going to be able to do this. Do you think that three big lads are going to be just grand with her biting his prick? If she froze then her fear of reprisal would stop her from reacting. I have no idea what really happened that night but if it was as she said it was then this would probably be the case.

When lads hold the physical balance of power then girls will always be conscious of that. It’s the reason more women don’t call out cat callers on the street. Naomi Alderman’s ‘The Power’ is an interesting take on this.

hatrickpatrick

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Nonsense. That's just how people like to portray the word liberal to make people they disagree with seem unreasonable.

I used to call myself a liberal, right up until the period from 2012-2014. It is undeniable that the left has undergone a gigantic cultural shift away from cultural libertarianism (free speech without constraints) and towards "callout culture" (say something stupid or make a mistake and a rampaging mob of angry internet users will harass the sh!t out of you, threaten to boycott your employers if they don't fire you, publish your name and address for others to do the same, etc).

Here's a relevant example: When the People Before Profit was founded in the mid-2000s, the left in Ireland was being widely maligned due to their opposition to the damage being caused by the property bubble and soaring property and rental prices to individual quality of life, from individual rents and mortgage issues to the building of gigantic, ugly high rise residential developments on formerly public land. Back then, they were the ones being shouted down - and they were the ones who advocated an "anything goes" political culture, in which no speech, no matter how abhorrent, should be coerced into silence by any means.

Fast forward a decade to the Repeal campaign, and you literally have PBP members openly gloating on Facebook about ripping down posters put up by the "no" side, and harassing hotels into cancelling hosted functions where the pro life side are trying to organise their campaign, in the grand tradition of activists renting such spaces in order to meet and organise.

Ten years ago, the idea of a college professor getting fired for saying something offensive would have been something championed by the right (particularly in America - too-liberal comments about sexuality etc would lead to calls for boycotts) - now, it's overwhelmingly the left which is engaging in this sh!t.

What's happening in this case is absolutely no different. The liberal left of the mid-2000s was all about personal and digital privacy, the idea that your employer shouldn't be able to use stuff you've written on the internet while off the clock against you in terms of firing, etc. This is because at that time, it was left wing views which were regularly the target of that kind of disdain. Now, in the 2010s, it's self-styled "liberals" who are calling for and celebrating the firing of people for offensive words they've said or written, off the clock, unrelated to their actual employment.

Denying that this is a major political shift is bizarre. The left and the right have traded places in terms of who designates themselves the upholders of public morality in the form of punishing those who step out of line, and those who believe in personal freedom without such limits.

Captain Obvious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Denying that this is a major political shift is bizarre. The left and the right have traded places in terms of who designates themselves the upholders of public morality in the form of punishing those who step out of line, and those who believe in personal freedom without such limits.

There has been a political shift but it's simply been people moving further along their side of the scale. It doesn't change what it means to be liberal though.

joe40

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

facehugger99 wrote: »

Yeah about that. The rest of us all got together and decided we thought different about it.

Sorry.

I wasn't aware of any consensus either in this thread or among the public at large, that private text messages among friends could constitute wrongdoing and that views like mine are in the minority. Can you cite an example of this?

You made interesting points about the shift in left wing politics to more authorian, not sure I fully agree but interesting nonetheless.
In terms of the sacrosanct nature of private messages, how far would you take that. A group of people in a group chat making racist comments about the only black employee and the messages accidentally get out. Is that person supposed to go into work with the same people and just accept that nothing can be done.
I believe in freedom but I also believe in accountability. We do not live in a vacuum.
The reason high profile sportstars are on the big bucks is the profile which is generated by sponsorship and public. They are accountable, that the price you ay for been in the public.
If those guys were in ordinary jobs they would probably be back at work today.

RabbleRouser2k

The head of Ulster Rugby made a statement earlier today-discussing the sacking.

Interesting read-but it seems more like a damned if he did, damned if he didn't-as well as to try and improve his own position at the Ulster Rugby club.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2018/0416/954955-logan-speaks-about-ulster-role/

As a man, I'd like to object to this notion abroad here that the sort of conversation those guys had in a WhatsApp discussion is normal. It's nothing of the sort to speak about a woman like that. At least not among any of the men I would associate with. Opposing their carry on has zero to do with this paranoid allegation of "political correctness" and everything to do with a repulsion at another human being treated like a piece of meat. You don't need to have a mother, sister, wife or daughter to feel very uncomfortable at that talk.

Rightly or wrongly teenage boys look up to these men. Therefore, it must be emphasised by people in power - be they teachers of those teenage boys, their parents, coaches etc - that this is not the way decent men carry on. It's just not.

Ulster Rugby and the IRFU did the right thing. It's now time for all the coaches, trainers and mentors involved in all sports to inculcate respect in those teenagers and be clear that the "lad" culture displayed by those rugby players is for men of less quality, to put it euphemistically.

joe40

Deleted User wrote: »

As a man, I'd like to object to this notion abroad here that the sort of conversation those guys had in a WhatsApp discussion is normal. It's nothing of the sort to speak about a woman like that. At least not among any of the men I would associate with. Opposing their carry on has zero to do with this paranoid allegation of "political correctness" and everything to do with a repulsion at another human being treated like a piece of meat. You don't need to have a mother, sister, wife or daughter to feel very uncomfortable at that talk.

Rightly or wrongly teenage boys look up to these men. Therefore, it must be emphasised by people in power - be they teachers of those teenage boys, their parents, coaches etc - that this is not the way decent men carry on. It's just not.

Ulster Rugby and the IRFU did the right thing. It's now time for all the coaches, trainers and mentors involved in all sports to inculcate respect in those teenagers and be clear that the "lad" culture displayed by those rugby players is for men of less quality, to put it euphemistically.

Good post, fully agree.

Fr Tod Umptious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I used to call myself a liberal, right up until the period from 2012-2014. It is undeniable that the left has undergone a gigantic cultural shift away from cultural libertarianism (free speech without constraints) and towards "callout culture" (say something stupid or make a mistake and a rampaging mob of angry internet users will harass the sh!t out of you, threaten to boycott your employers if they don't fire you, publish your name and address for others to do the same, etc).

Here's a relevant example: When the People Before Profit was founded in the mid-2000s, the left in Ireland was being widely maligned due to their opposition to the damage being caused by the property bubble and soaring property and rental prices to individual quality of life, from individual rents and mortgage issues to the building of gigantic, ugly high rise residential developments on formerly public land. Back then, they were the ones being shouted down - and they were the ones who advocated an "anything goes" political culture, in which no speech, no matter how abhorrent, should be coerced into silence by any means.

Fast forward a decade to the Repeal campaign, and you literally have PBP members openly gloating on Facebook about ripping down posters put up by the "no" side, and harassing hotels into cancelling hosted functions where the pro life side are trying to organise their campaign, in the grand tradition of activists renting such spaces in order to meet and organise.

Ten years ago, the idea of a college professor getting fired for saying something offensive would have been something championed by the right (particularly in America - too-liberal comments about sexuality etc would lead to calls for boycotts) - now, it's overwhelmingly the left which is engaging in this sh!t.

What's happening in this case is absolutely no different. The liberal left of the mid-2000s was all about personal and digital privacy, the idea that your employer shouldn't be able to use stuff you've written on the internet while off the clock against you in terms of firing, etc. This is because at that time, it was left wing views which were regularly the target of that kind of disdain. Now, in the 2010s, it's self-styled "liberals" who are calling for and celebrating the firing of people for offensive words they've said or written, off the clock, unrelated to their actual employment.

Denying that this is a major political shift is bizarre. The left and the right have traded places in terms of who designates themselves the upholders of public morality in the form of punishing those who step out of line, and those who believe in personal freedom without such limits.

While I agree with you that over the last few years the folks that promote toleration are the ones who are not tolerant of opposing ideas I don't think that is at play here.

Those messages, even though they were private initially did become public, and thus action had to be taken because of their content.

Ten or twenty years ago if these were text messages or e-mails then I think the outcome would have been the very same.

It's incumbent on sport people to be mature in their private as well as public lives, that's the reality of being a professional sports person.

goz83

NAGDEFI wrote: »

I ignore them for the lunatic fringe that they are. Say you have 1.5 million adult females in Ireland, 2% of that is 30,000. A small minority can make an awful lot of noise. Most of the women i know analyse the case in a rational way.

They are also going to post a lot on message boards, tweet and appear more prominent than they really are. The silent majority are less inclined.

That march by that feminist group before the Ulster match on Friday was a damp squib.

Thats just it though. The tiny, but loud minority can make it appear that a majority of people share their views. These looneys have turned the feminist movement into a hypocrital, frenzied man hating machine and its at the point where true feminists actively disassociate themselves from “the dause” and publicly denounce themselves as feminists.

Silentcorner wrote: »

She left without her things....does someone thinking rationally do that?

I’m a rational person. I forget things all the time whether stressed, distracted, busy or relaxed. I forgot my house keys this morning. I only realised after dropping the kids off that I was locked out. No phone or wallet. It happens. I managed to get in though. Now, if the house was on fire and there was a risk I would be injured, or killed by going back in to get my phone and wallet, you can bet your ass I would let em burn, because i wouldn’t be putting myself in danger for trivial things like that.

This idiot got a second chance so perhaps there is hope for Jackson and Olding to rebuild their career yet

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-5106771/Axed-Coronation-Street-star-Chris-Fountain-returns-ITV.html

hatrickpatrick

joe40 wrote: »

You made interesting points about the shift in left wing politics to more authorian, not sure I fully agree but interesting nonetheless.
In terms of the sacrosanct nature of private messages, how far would you take that. A group of people in a group chat making racist comments about the only black employee and the messages accidentally get out. Is that person supposed to go into work with the same people and just accept that nothing can be done.

I explicitly made a distinction between work related and non work related for this exact reason. Hell, this has happened in the recent past - people at PWC were fired over an email chain mocking female employees and interns sexually, and rightly so. The texts in this case were not work related in any way, shape, or form - that type of communication should be sacrosanct. Behaviour outside of work and unrelated to one's work should not be a factor in one's treatment at work.

It's similar to how bullying a fellow classmate outside school hours is still a school office matter, because it's directly relevant to school - but getting into a fight on a Saturday with a neighbour at the playground, who doesn't have any connection to the same school, is rightly something which your school's office has absolutely no legitimate business getting involved in.

I believe in freedom but I also believe in accountability. We do not live in a vacuum.

I believe in accountability, but not for private, personal communication and correspondence. I believe that this specifically should be regarded as taking place in a sort of vacuum, and always have - and I'm pretty sure that up until recently, it always has.

The reason high profile sportstars are on the big bucks is the profile which is generated by sponsorship and public. They are accountable, that the price you ay for been in the public.

They are accountable to the public for their public actions. Their actions in a private setting are a completely different matter, and rightly so.

If those guys were in ordinary jobs they would probably be back at work today.

Not if the Twitterati had their way, they wouldn't. This type of internet hate mob bullsh!t is happening frequently and it very definitely does not apply only to famous individuals who work in an overtly public setting.

hatrickpatrick

Captain Obvious wrote: »

There has been a political shift but it's simply been people moving further along their side of the scale. It doesn't change what it means to be liberal though.

If being a liberal used to involve defending freedom of speech, and being a liberal now involves demanding that people be fired for the words they have written, how is that not a gigantic political shift? It's as gigantic a political shift as it would be if the right suddenly began championing universal healthcare, while the left suddenly began waxing lyrical about the wonders of a two-tiered health insurance system.

facehugger99

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Denying that this is a major political shift is bizarre. The left and the right have traded places in terms of who designates themselves the upholders of public morality in the form of punishing those who step out of line, and those who believe in personal freedom without such limits.

Such bullsh;t!

This is not left vs right issue. This is a common human decency issue.

The text messages were never the issue, not on their own - this was about behaviour, about how you'd like to see your sister or daughters or friends treated.

The people who've gone to war on this due to 'digital privacy' or the right to use certain words have backed the wrong fcuking horse!

You might also want to check the political credentials of the poster who's got the biggest post-count in this thread (by far) to see how far off the mark you are.

Captain Obvious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If being a liberal used to involve defending freedom of speech, and being a liberal now involves demanding that people be fired for the words they have written, how is that not a gigantic political shift? It's as gigantic a political shift as it would be if the right suddenly began championing universal healthcare, while the left suddenly began waxing lyrical about the wonders of a two-tiered health insurance system.

No, that's how you define it and it's how some on the far left have decided to label themselves. Doesn't change the fact that there are still people with liberal views that have not gone far left.

hatrickpatrick

facehugger99 wrote: »

Such bullsh;t!

This is not left vs right issue. This is a common human decency issue.

The text messages were never the issue, not on their own - this was about behaviour, about how you'd like to see your sister or daughters or friends treated.

Ok, then if this has absolutely nothing to do with the text messages and everything to do with behaviour, which behaviour is it that was wrong? Engaging in consensual group sex? Getting drunk at a house party? I'm all ears. It's been established beyond a reasonable doubt that what happened was not rape, in case you've forgotten.

The people who've gone to war on this due to 'digital privacy' or the right to use certain words have backed the wrong fcuking horse!

Is that because you don't think that this is a major factor in the case, or because you believe that private correspondence should be subject to morality policing?

You might also want to check the political credentials of the poster who's got the biggest post-count in this thread (by far) to see how far off the mark you are.

As silly as this may sound, I have no idea how one checks the in-thread post count of particular individuals - the only post count I know of is the number of posts a user has across the entire site as a whole. If you feel like enlightening me, I'll of course look into it - but I genuinely have no idea what you might be getting at here.

hatrickpatrick

Captain Obvious wrote: »

No, that's how you define it and it's how some on the far left have decided to label themselves. Doesn't change the fact that there are still people with liberal views that have not gone far left.

Oh I agree entirely with this, I'm talking about the mainstream. I fundamentally maintain that one cannot be a 'liberal' and oppose freedom of speech simultaneously, it's more or less an oxymoron.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Such bullsh;t!

This is not left vs right issue. This is a common human decency issue.

The text messages were never the issue, not on their own - this was about behaviour, about how you'd like to see your sister or daughters or friends treated.

The people who've gone to war on this due to 'digital privacy' or the right to use certain words have backed the wrong fcuking horse!

You might also want to check the political credentials of the poster who's got the biggest post-count in this thread (by far) to see how far off the mark you are.

If it not about the messages now :rolleyes: and about behaviour, what is your problem with a consensual threesome?

FrancieBrady

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Oh I agree entirely with this, I'm talking about the mainstream. I fundamentally maintain that one cannot be a 'liberal' and oppose freedom of speech simultaneously, it's more or less an oxymoron.

I think there is a really dangerous erosion of rights in this regard.

And I don't think a lot of people will realise it until it is too late.

joe40

Do people honestly believe that the IRFU bowed to fringe elements on the internet. I would give them more credit than that. They took stock of the general public opinion on this matter and acted accordingly. Normal people are not as easily influenced by the twitterati as you like to imagine.
I love how some like to present themselves as the lone voice of reason when majority are just easily influenced fools

Mrsmum

Poll on the Clare Byrne Show tonight: 69% agreed with IRFU decision, 19% disagreed.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

Poll on the Clare Byrne Show tonight: 69% agreed with IRFU decision, 19% disagreed.

The model's story is interesting. Somebody taking personal responsibility and not ending up in situations which she says herself 'could have ended very differently'.

It should be the message coming from this case too, for men and women. But no, it's all about the bad men, innit? :rolleyes:

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The model's story is interesting. Somebody taking personal responsibility and not ending up in situations which she says herself 'could have ended very differently'.

It should be the message coming from this case too, for men and women. But no, it's all about the bad men, innit? :rolleyes:

Yeah could have ended very differently say if someone ie a man raped her.

FrancieBrady

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yeah could have ended very differently say if someone ie a man raped her.

Is someone more interested in getting the dig in, I wonder?

RabbleRouser2k

Mrsmum wrote: »

Yeah could have ended very differently say if someone ie a man raped her.

Or she bumped into some crazy wan accusing her of eyeing up her boyfriend-physical attacks happen also-its not always rape.

Apparently the club that was said to have interest in Jackson actually doesnt'. So he's still clubless.

AllForIt

Mrsmum wrote: »

Poll on the Clare Byrne Show tonight: 69% agreed with IRFU decision, 19% disagreed.

Asking if the IRFU made the right decision is not exactly the same as asking if the outcome was the right one.

Lucy8080

If this case happened south of the border , those lads would still be in their jobs.

Their right to anonymity until found guilty would have seen to this.

It's scary that a rape accusation can be made and ruin livelihoods and tattoo someone negatively for life-even though they are found "not guilty".

Any crazy/malicious woman ( they do exist), up north, now has another weapon in her arsenal to destroy a man she feels slighted by.

RabbleRouser2k

AllForIt wrote: »

Asking if the IRFU made the right decision is not exactly the same as asking if the outcome was the right one.

True-wording in these polls tends to be a bit 'loose'. You could ask 'do you agree with the irfu's decision'-I think that would be more accurate.

But that's a different matter, I guess.

Lucy8080 wrote: »

If this case happened south of the border , those lads would still be in their jobs.

Their right to anonymity until found guilty would have seen to this.

It's scary that a rape accusation can be made and ruin livelihoods and tattoo someone negatively for life-even though they are found "not guilty".

Any crazy/malicious woman ( they do exist), up north, now has another weapon in her arsenal to destroy a man she feels slighted by.

In the South, there would probably have been a 'the two guys are injured-out for the rest of the season'. But would they have returned-I don't know. I don't know if they would.

I would argue that 'fake claims' have always been out there-Michael Flatley was accused of rape a number of years ago. Flatley admitted to a consensual encounter (while engaged to Lisa Murphy)so his image was tarnished, but the case went to court, in the US-and was thrown out by the judge due to the claim being found to be completely fabricated.
As for was the claim 'fake'-you don't undergo an invasive examination, including video of your cervix, as well as expensive legal bills, in order to ruin a person's reputation.

She, and the law, believed she had a legitimate claim-a thorough examination of the prosecution and defense's claims found the defense not liable.

FrancieBrady

RabbleRouser2k wrote: »

Or she bumped into some crazy wan accusing her of eyeing up her boyfriend-physical attacks happen also-its not always rape.

And the big elephant in the room that dare not speak it's name - that she might have consented to something she would not ordinarily have done. And some unfortunate would pay a high price for it later.

goz83

Mrsmum wrote: »

Poll on the Clare Byrne Show tonight: 69% agreed with IRFU decision, 19% disagreed.

Well if the Claire Byrne show, the epicentre of balanced, unbiased debate says so :rolleyes:

Yeah_Right

Mrsmum wrote: »

Note sure what this means.
Is coloured not the right term, maybe not ??
Or are you poking fun at the idea of my son having coloured/black friends ?? In which case he goes to a very large Dublin school. How could he not have friends of all sorts including coloured/black.
What is your point ?

It's racist. Commonly used in the American south and apartheid South Africa. Surprised you didn't know this. Didn't you say you were a teacher or worked with young people? (Apologies if I've mixed you up with another poster).

goz83

Yeah_Right wrote: »

It's racist. Commonly used in the American south and apartheid South Africa. Surprised you didn't know this. Didn't you say you were a teacher or worked with young people? (Apologies if I've mixed you up with another poster).

Correct. She’s the teacher. Seems she needs to catch up on age old racism speak.

ArthurDayne

joe40 wrote: »

Do people honestly believe that the IRFU bowed to fringe elements on the internet. I would give them more credit than that. They took stock of the general public opinion on this matter and acted accordingly. Normal people are not as easily influenced by the twitterati as you like to imagine.
I love how some like to present themselves as the lone voice of reason when majority are just easily influenced fools

Firstly, it's a perceived public opinion. Secondly, even if the perception was correct, saying that justice has been served because public opinion is in favour seems cynical. Public opinion should not be a cornerstone of one's opinion as to whether justice has been done in the course of events.

Is there really not a case for saying that, as they have committed no crime, have they not already been punished enough for their bad behaviour? The guys have been portrayed firstly as rapists, then at the very least sexual deviants / creeps / enablers of rape / misogynists / women-beaters. Despite having committed no crime they have lost two years of their lives, lost their reputations and their morally questionable behaviour at the time has been examined with intense scrutiny. Had those Whatsapp messages emerged after the trial had concluded and the 'not guilty' verdict rendered, things may well have been different. Instead, due to the fact the trial had not concluded, the significance of the messages was magnified as part of the 'will they get done' discussion. People formed a view in advance of the verdict, and that view was hard to dis-embed regardless of the outcome.

The Head of Ulster Rugby has said these guys will never play for Ulster again.
Regardless of public opinion, and regardless of whather the IRFU decision was the sensible one -- I am yet to be convinced that justice has been done here.

Lucy8080

"As for was the claim 'fake'-you don't undergo an invasive examination, including video of your cervix, as well as expensive legal bills, in order to ruin a person's reputation." Quote from rabblerouser2k

My answer.

Maybe you would not, but others have. I don't think anyone would deny False rape claims have happened.

Whatever the motivation behind such actions, I'll accept that you would never do such a thing. Just like I accept the jurys findings of "not guilty.

What I don't accept is your "belief" that people are not capable of going on such a journey.

Woman accept Gynecological examinations as one of lives burdens. Most women I know are miles ahead of men when it comes to accepting intrusive examinations.

Also, I'm not sure if the accuser had to pay for her representation ( I'll stand corrected on that point).

Larbre34

ArthurDayne wrote: »

The Head of Ulster Rugby has said these guys will never play for Ulster again.
Regardless of public opinion, and regardless of whather the IRFU decision was the sensible one -- I am yet to be convinced that justice has been done here.

Actually he didn't. He said repeatedly that is what was "envisaged" by the "joint Ulster Rugby / IRFU" action, but refused to say the word 'never'.

The reason for that, is that it is not in his gift to say so.

A) the incumbent administrators who did this deal will not be around forever, future executives and coaches will be free to hire these guys back if the environment is right, they have done nothing wrong (either criminally or contractually). Obviously the poisonous rancour and division around the whole thing meant it was mutually advantageous for both sides to end the relationship for now.

it is widely acknowledged that this orchestrated exit was by means of compensation in the amount of the full value of their contracts up to summer 2019, when both were to expire. This is only right, as it would have been a massive legal misstep to have attempted to dismiss them forthwith.

Some people don't like facts getting in the way of a bit of good outrage and obviously sponsors get a bit nervy in such circumstances, but imagine the mayhem if one of these whiter-than-white types casting the first stones on social media now, were ever wronged by the very legal system they criticise for a considered and dispassionate outcome in this case, they'd turn themselves inside out with hypocrisy.

Larbre34

goz83 wrote: »

Well if the Claire Byrne show, the epicentre of balanced, unbiased debate says so :rolleyes:

To be fair, this is not just a show of hands on Question Time, the Claire Byrne panel is put together and vetted externally and has a fixed sample of 1,000 much like any Sunday paper opinion poll, its not inherently skewed like a Joe Duffy text poll would be.

RabbleRouser2k

There was an interesting article on independent.ie on the difference between Jackson and Olding's apologies.
Neither was needed, or warranted, but there's an interesting dissection of how Olding and Jackson failed and succeeded.

https://www.independent.ie/life/health-wellbeing/dr-ciara-kelly-why-its-always-important-to-hear-the-words-im-sorry-36805422.html

Outlaw Pete

joe40 wrote: »

Do people honestly believe that the IRFU bowed to fringe elements on the internet. I would give them more credit than that. They took stock of the general public opinion on this matter and acted accordingly. Normal people are not as easily influenced by the twitterati as you like to imagine.

Nonsense. See, that's just it. Some would have us believe that the rad fems are just a 'fringe element' but they are far from that and they indeed exist in the real world and have a lot of leverage in it too. Look at the NWCI's Twitter page and you'll see that they regularly retweet the misandric bile that the members of the fringe element you speak of churns out.

This has nothing to do with the views of the 'general public' as you suggest. It was about yielding to those who had the power to make their lives difficult and doing just what the pressure groups wanted them to do. A sign of the times if ever there was one.




https://twitter.com/NWCI/status/985081843178508288

facehugger99

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

This has nothing to do with the views of the 'general public' as you suggest.

Incorrect.

Numerous polls have shown a huge majority in favour of them being let go by Ulster and Ireland. You can refuse to accept that reality and rail about the feminazis ruining everything for you, but it kinda makes your posts look really stupid.

goz83

Larbre34 wrote: »

To be fair, this is not just a show of hands on Question Time, the Claire Byrne panel is put together and vetted externally and has a fixed sample of 1,000 much like any Sunday paper opinion poll, its not inherently skewed like a Joe Duffy text poll would be.

Aside from the fact that 1000 people is a statistically tiny number for a poll, I am not privy to the CB poll selection process. RTE have time and again have shown a bias in favour of the perceived public opinion and CB herself is a less than wholesome presenter imo. Didn't she cheat on her first husband which ended their marriage. There was some other media frenzy about her next long term relationship and how it ended, but I can't recall the details. She is a woman who loves attention and the camera.

Unfortunately, most people will just go along with the perceived mood, rather than be in the perceived minority. Here, in the real world, I have had conversations with alot of people about the decision of the IRFU (and I don't follow rugby). There is a 50/50 split in opinion, but here'e the important bit. The ones who were against the IRFU decision were relatively well informed about the details of the case and the messages. The ones who agreed with the decision were largely oblivious to the details and a few knew nothing about the text messages at all.

So, did the CB panel vet people on their knowledge of the case and the texts? Unless that is a definite yes....then the poll means SFA.

Captain Obvious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ok, then if this has absolutely nothing to do with the text messages and everything to do with behaviour, which behaviour is it that was wrong? Engaging in consensual group sex? Getting drunk at a house party? I'm all ears. It's been established beyond a reasonable doubt that what happened was not rape, in case you've forgotten.

It absolutely has not.

Captain Obvious

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Oh I agree entirely with this, I'm talking about the mainstream. I fundamentally maintain that one cannot be a 'liberal' and oppose freedom of speech simultaneously, it's more or less an oxymoron.

Not really. There often comes a point were rights and views compete. Freedom of speech versus freedom from harassment being the main conflict we see now. This is where the left is at odds with itself as there is no real consensus as to where the line between the two are.

Mrsmum

goz83 wrote: »

Aside from the fact that 1000 people is a statistically tiny number for a poll, I am not privy to the CB poll selection process. RTE have time and again have shown a bias in favour of the perceived public opinion and CB herself is a less than wholesome presenter imo. Didn't she cheat on her first husband which ended their marriage. There was some other media frenzy about her next long term relationship and how it ended, but I can't recall the details. She is a woman who loves attention and the camera.

Unfortunately, most people will just go along with the perceived mood, rather than be in the perceived minority. Here, in the real world, I have had conversations with alot of people about the decision of the IRFU (and I don't follow rugby). There is a 50/50 split in opinion, but here'e the important bit. The ones who were against the IRFU decision were relatively well informed about the details of the case and the messages. The ones who agreed with the decision were largely oblivious to the details and a few knew nothing about the text messages at all.

So, did the CB panel vet people on their knowledge of the case and the texts? Unless that is a definite yes....then the poll means SFA.

So basically your conversations are more valid than the Amarach poll. Ok then. I'm sure we're all impressed by that.
As for what you said about CB herself - Do you hold all male presenters, sports commentators etc to the same standards ?