Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

ohnonotgmail

blanch152 wrote: »

I have suspected for a while that you are part of the group that favours mob justice over the rule of law.

There is nothing wrong with believing the woman, but there is everything wrong in hounding a man out of a job for something he has been found not guilty of.

These are not politicians, whose job requires them to set standards. They are rugby players, that is all.

their employers and their sponsors expect certain standards of the players.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

their employers and their sponsors expect certain standards of the players.

Which is complete nonsense as we know blind eyes are turned elsewhere.
This is employers and sponsors running scared because a lethal alliance of still prevalent religious sex shame and militant irrational feminism came together in an online cesspit of holier than thou outrage.

The tide will turn against the price these people want for mistakes and youthful indiscretions.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

I have suspected for a while that you are part of the group that favours mob justice over the rule of law.

There is nothing wrong with believing the woman, but there is everything wrong in hounding a man out of a job for something he has been found not guilty of.

These are not politicians, whose job requires them to set standards. They are rugby players, that is all.

Look at it this way, say if Jackson & Olding had an office job where there is a mix of men and women. I'd bet that most female employees would actually find it hard to sit in the same room as them, knowing how they have disrespected and objectified women. Its like in the good old days, you would see the harp calenders up in the workplace. You don't see them now and there is a reason for that.

blanch152

jm08 wrote: »

Look at it this way, say if Jackson & Olding had an office job where there is a mix of men and women. I'd bet that most female employees would actually find it hard to sit in the same room as them, knowing how they have disrespected and objectified women. Its like in the good old days, you would see the harp calenders up in the workplace. You don't see them now and there is a reason for that.

Their employer wouldn't be able to fire them for private conversations outside work.

Edit: It is possible that the weaker labour laws in the UK allow Ulster Rugby considerable more latitude, but they would succeed in an Unfair Dismissals Case in the South.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

Their employer wouldn't be able to fire them for private conversations outside work.

Ignore the legal side of it, but do you not see the problems that would be caused for the workplace if they did become become public knowledge.

Edit: It is possible that the weaker labour laws in the UK allow Ulster Rugby considerable more latitude, but they would succeed in an Unfair Dismissals Case in the South.

That is why the employers would pay them off to leave which is exactly what happened with the two lads.

It will be interesting to see what happens to the other two lads involved (think one has moved to Australia already).

upandcumming

currants wrote: »

Do you really think its far worse for a player to lose his career after a series of, at best, extremely ill-judged events than for a young woman to leave an encounter crying and bleeding and believing she's been raped?

I know this was posted three days ago, but it certainly warrants a response.

Are you genuinely saying that these young men, who have already lost over a year of their already short sporting lives, deserve to be forced to find work abroad, because a young woman believed she was raped, and was crying?

I have left encounters with people crying. Should they have lost their jobs?

This is rare, pure form of nonsense.

jm08

upandcumming wrote: »

I know this was posted three days ago, but it certainly warrants a response.

Are you genuinely saying that these young men, who have already lost over a year of their already short sporting lives, deserve to be forced to find work abroad, because a young woman believed she was raped, and was crying?

I have left encounters with people crying. Should they have lost their jobs?

This is rare, pure form of nonsense.

Look at it this way, if they had normal office jobs in Ireland such as insurance, banking, finance etc., do you think anyone would want to employ them?

Yeah_Right

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Hmm
If you really think people should stay playing rugby after:
The girl having an injury What injury?
Blood all over the bed We're talking a few drops not pools of blood.
Girl hysterical from numerous accounts A young drunk girl got hysterical. Wow.
Texts such as: she was very very loose, it was like a merry go round at a carnival, Did Jackson send those messages? Besides that, it's lads talking ****e about a consensual threesome.
Im not sure what's wrong with you.

As Ulster Rugby said, they stand for respect, they can't have people playing that have no respect for women. No respect for THAT woman.

And in response to your question: Yes I think they should still be playing rugby.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Which is complete nonsense as we know blind eyes are turned elsewhere.
This is employers and sponsors running scared because a lethal alliance of still prevalent religious sex shame and militant irrational feminism came together in an online cesspit of holier than thou outrage.

The tide will turn against the price these people want for mistakes and youthful indiscretions.

what happens elsewhere is irrelevant. Now, if Ulster and their sponsors had acted differently in a similar situation you might have a point. But you dont.

Captain Obvious

twinytwo wrote: »

I wonder why all these people are not out protesting and whinging about what the garda top ranks conspired to do to garda Mccabe... but then why proest something that actually matters and has far more serious consequences for the country .... reality is it does not suit the little snowflake agendas.

What matters to you is not necessarily something that matters to others.

Roger Hassenforder

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Hmm
If you really think people should stay playing rugby after:
The girl having an injury
Blood all over the bed
Girl hysterical from numerous accounts
Texts such as: she was very very loose, it was like a merry go round at a carnival,
Im not sure what's wrong with you.

As Ulster Rugby said, they stand for respect, they can't have people playing that have no respect for women.

you've three points, I'll deal with them in the order you brought them up.

If you dial back your hyperbole

Blood/injury
There wasn't "blood all over the bed", there was some blood on the bed, some of it the complainants, some of it another party not involved in the case.
There was disagreement over the quality and value of the forensic evidence by the respective expert witnesses,not wholly suitable for this thread.

hysterics
What are the numerous sources?
The one independent contemporaneous witness (taxi driver Stephen Fisher) said she was "crying/sobbing throughout the journey" (with her head on the chest of the friend of the men she went on to claim raped her) but it seems not of sufficient concern for him to call the PSNI. So was he used to girls crying in his cab, and wasn't concerned, or was it not exactly hysterical crying? the only witness that says she was hysterical was Harrison, who said in his whatsapp "Mate no joke she was in hysterics". Thats the only person to mention she was hysterical, not numerous, and arguably exaggerated.

re. text conversation
what did Paddy Jackson say?
(hint: "there was a lot of spit")
thats it. at least acknowledge the totality of his contribution, and ask, why so is Craig Gilroy still playing, if the whatsapp conversation was so worthy of life long sanction?


So to summarise, I'll tell you whats wrong with me, these lads were acquitted, but still hounded out of their current jobs, and future career in this country, by
a very vocal and highly biased engineered outrage. The can no longer work in punditry, coaching in this country once their short career is over.
they're untouchable, despite being innocent.

Were they gallant? fcuk no
Did they distinguish themselves? did they fcuk.
were the sh1ts? I think so.
Do I condemn their behaviour? Yes.
Should they have been punished? Yes.

However, they were acquitted after a very short deliberation, after a marathon trial, by a jury who were privy to far more than we are. They're entitled to try and resume their lives. But no, a mob gathered themselves, "i accept the jury's findings, but..." , and pressure was brought to bear on the sponsors. Death threats issued to the lawyers etc. this is not justice. If we dont have justice, we have lost a core value of our society. couple of months suspension with some charity work, IRFU initiate a core values/respect training programme etc., would have satisfied most rational people.

Its worrying, after years of fighting for better rights and tolerance of others, we have now the most intolerant society, where mob rule is all the counts. the court of law no longer matters, its the court of public opinion via the outraged Twitterati that carries the most weight.

Worrying times.

Yeah_Right

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

you've three points, I'll deal with them in the order you brought them up.

If you dial back your hyperbole

Blood/injury
There wasn't "blood all over the bed", there was some blood on the bed, some of it the complainants, some of it another party not involved in the case.
There was disagreement over the quality and value of the forensic evidence by the respective expert witnesses,not wholly suitable for this thread.

hysterics
What are the numerous sources?
The one independent contemporaneous witness (taxi driver Stephen Fisher) said she was "crying/sobbing throughout the journey" (with her head on the chest of the friend of the men she went on to claim raped her) but it seems not of sufficient concern for him to call the PSNI. So was he used to girls crying in his cab, and wasn't concerned, or was it not exactly hysterical crying? the only witness that says she was hysterical was Harrison, who said in his whatsapp "Mate no joke she was in hysterics". Thats the only person to mention she was hysterical, not numerous, and arguably exaggerated.

re. text conversation
what did Paddy Jackson say?
(hint: "there was a lot of spit")
thats it. at least acknowledge the totality of his contribution, and ask, why so is Craig Gilroy still playing, if the whatsapp conversation was so worthy of life long sanction?


So to summarise, I'll tell you whats wrong with me, these lads were acquitted, but still hounded out of their current jobs, and future career in this country, by
a very vocal and highly biased engineered outrage. The can no longer work in punditry, coaching in this country once their short career is over.
they're untouchable, despite being innocent.

Were they gallant? fcuk no
Did they distinguish themselves? did they fcuk.
were the sh1ts? I think so.
Do I condemn their behaviour? Yes.
Should they have been punished? Yes.

However, they were acquitted after a very short deliberation, after a marathon trial, by a jury who were privy to far more than we are. They're entitled to try and resume their lives. But no, a mob gathered themselves, "i accept the jury's findings, but..." , and pressure was brought to bear on the sponsors. Death threats issued to the lawyers etc. this is not justice. If we dont have justice, we have lost a core value of our society. couple of months suspension with some charity work, IRFU initiate a core values/respect training programme etc., would have satisfied most rational people.

Its worrying, after years of fighting for better rights and tolerance of others, we have now the most intolerant society, where mob rule is all the counts. the court of law no longer matters, its the court of public opinion via the outraged Twitterati that carries the most weight.

Worrying times.

Well said.

I actually think the IRFU and Ulster missed a chance to make a real and genuine change in rugby in regards to its perceived attitude towards women. * You mentioned a core values/respect training program. Its been done in other countries in response to various incidents. In NZ they created a respect and responsibility panel that had men and women on it from both inside and outside the game including former players. They work with players at all levels, professional and amateur, to make them better members of their community. I think there is also a permanent woman's spot on the national board. Its only been going a year or 2 so I can't comment on its effectiveness but at least its a genuine effort.

Ulster and IRFU just threw the guys out and said to their sponsors and fans "problem solved".

*I say "perceived attitude towards women" because the majority of rugby players are male and it is a macho environment, with a lot of testosterone that can involve guys bragging about sexual conquests and measuring their dicks. Some will take this too far. However, from what I've seen of various sports teams (male and female) its not unique to men's rugby.

ArthurDayne

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

you've three points, I'll deal with them in the order you brought them up.

If you dial back your hyperbole

Blood/injury
There wasn't "blood all over the bed", there was some blood on the bed, some of it the complainants, some of it another party not involved in the case.
There was disagreement over the quality and value of the forensic evidence by the respective expert witnesses,not wholly suitable for this thread.

hysterics
What are the numerous sources?
The one independent contemporaneous witness (taxi driver Stephen Fisher) said she was "crying/sobbing throughout the journey" (with her head on the chest of the friend of the men she went on to claim raped her) but it seems not of sufficient concern for him to call the PSNI. So was he used to girls crying in his cab, and wasn't concerned, or was it not exactly hysterical crying? the only witness that says she was hysterical was Harrison, who said in his whatsapp "Mate no joke she was in hysterics". Thats the only person to mention she was hysterical, not numerous, and arguably exaggerated.

re. text conversation
what did Paddy Jackson say?
(hint: "there was a lot of spit")
thats it. at least acknowledge the totality of his contribution, and ask, why so is Craig Gilroy still playing, if the whatsapp conversation was so worthy of life long sanction?


So to summarise, I'll tell you whats wrong with me, these lads were acquitted, but still hounded out of their current jobs, and future career in this country, by
a very vocal and highly biased engineered outrage. The can no longer work in punditry, coaching in this country once their short career is over.
they're untouchable, despite being innocent.

Were they gallant? fcuk no
Did they distinguish themselves? did they fcuk.
were the sh1ts? I think so.
Do I condemn their behaviour? Yes.
Should they have been punished? Yes.

However, they were acquitted after a very short deliberation, after a marathon trial, by a jury who were privy to far more than we are. They're entitled to try and resume their lives. But no, a mob gathered themselves, "i accept the jury's findings, but..." , and pressure was brought to bear on the sponsors. Death threats issued to the lawyers etc. this is not justice. If we dont have justice, we have lost a core value of our society. couple of months suspension with some charity work, IRFU initiate a core values/respect training programme etc., would have satisfied most rational people.

Its worrying, after years of fighting for better rights and tolerance of others, we have now the most intolerant society, where mob rule is all the counts. the court of law no longer matters, its the court of public opinion via the outraged Twitterati that carries the most weight.

Worrying times.

Very good summation.

ohnonotgmail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

you've three points, I'll deal with them in the order you brought them up.

If you dial back your hyperbole

Blood/injury
There wasn't "blood all over the bed", there was some blood on the bed, some of it the complainants, some of it another party not involved in the case.
There was disagreement over the quality and value of the forensic evidence by the respective expert witnesses,not wholly suitable for this thread.

hysterics
What are the numerous sources?
The one independent contemporaneous witness (taxi driver Stephen Fisher) said she was "crying/sobbing throughout the journey" (with her head on the chest of the friend of the men she went on to claim raped her) but it seems not of sufficient concern for him to call the PSNI. So was he used to girls crying in his cab, and wasn't concerned, or was it not exactly hysterical crying? the only witness that says she was hysterical was Harrison, who said in his whatsapp "Mate no joke she was in hysterics". Thats the only person to mention she was hysterical, not numerous, and arguably exaggerated.

re. text conversation
what did Paddy Jackson say?
(hint: "there was a lot of spit")
thats it. at least acknowledge the totality of his contribution, and ask, why so is Craig Gilroy still playing, if the whatsapp conversation was so worthy of life long sanction?


So to summarise, I'll tell you whats wrong with me, these lads were acquitted, but still hounded out of their current jobs, and future career in this country, by
a very vocal and highly biased engineered outrage. The can no longer work in punditry, coaching in this country once their short career is over.
they're untouchable, despite being innocent.

Were they gallant? fcuk no
Did they distinguish themselves? did they fcuk.
were the sh1ts? I think so.
Do I condemn their behaviour? Yes.
Should they have been punished? Yes.

However, they were acquitted after a very short deliberation, after a marathon trial, by a jury who were privy to far more than we are. They're entitled to try and resume their lives. But no, a mob gathered themselves, "i accept the jury's findings, but..." , and pressure was brought to bear on the sponsors. Death threats issued to the lawyers etc. this is not justice. If we dont have justice, we have lost a core value of our society. couple of months suspension with some charity work, IRFU initiate a core values/respect training programme etc., would have satisfied most rational people.

Its worrying, after years of fighting for better rights and tolerance of others, we have now the most intolerant society, where mob rule is all the counts. the court of law no longer matters, its the court of public opinion via the outraged Twitterati that carries the most weight.

Worrying times.

were they? i thought some of the prosecution evidence was withheld by the judge and only came out after the trial was over.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

were they? i thought some of the prosecution evidence was withheld by the judge and only came out after the trial was over.

The jury could certainly see how much of HER blood was on the bed and it was certainly NOT COVERED. But the outraged seem determined to keep that exaggeration/sensational invention in the public domain.

Scurrilous at best and deeply sinister at worst.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

The jury could certainly see how much of HER blood was on the bed and it was certainly NOT COVERED. But the outraged seem determined to keep that exaggeration/sensational invention in the public domain.

Scurrilous at best and deeply sinister at worst.

hmmmm

Jurors were unaware that there were photographs of additional blood on the sheets of Paddy Jackson’s bed, with the rugby player’s barrister saying he had “no intention of saying where this blood came from”.

Roger Hassenforder

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

were they? i thought some of the prosecution evidence was withheld by the judge and only came out after the trial was over.

They would have been privy to all the witness statements, of which only snippets made it out as reported.
AFAIK the "disclosures" related to a few aspects which might bias the jury where the "evidence " was either immaterial or contentious.
The witness statements werent public. DF was interviewed twice for example, to clarify "hand movements", possibly which informed their decision not to proceed with a prosecution.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

hmmmm

It was NOT her blood, so it was irrelevant.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was NOT her blood, so it was irrelevant.

so who's blood was it?

Roger Hassenforder

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

hmmmm

Defence and prosecution "agreed" to photoshop out blood not belonging to any of the parties involved in the case.
It didnt matter thus where it came from, other than to satisfy lurid curiosity.

Roger Hassenforder

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so who's blood was it?

An organism* not involved in the case
(Was it human blood...?)

ohnonotgmail

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

An organism* not involved in the case
(Was it human blood...?)

were they sacrificing cats?

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

so who's blood was it?

It's irrelevant. The Judge, Defence and Prosecution agreed that in normal point of law discussions.

P.S. The bed was also NOT 'COVERED' in blood.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's irrelevant. The Judge, Defence and Prosecution agreed that in normal point of law discussions.

P.S. The bed was also NOT 'COVERED' in blood.

as far as i can see the only person who has used the phrase "covered in blood" on this thread is you. and multiple times at that.

upandcumming

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

as far as i can see the only person who has used the phrase "covered in blood" on this thread is you. and multiple times at that.

Look harder.

Yeah_Right

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

were they sacrificing cats?

A sheep. That also explains the talk of a spit roast

Timothy Bryce

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It's irrelevant. The Judge, Defence and Prosecution agreed that in normal point of law discussions.

P.S. The bed was also NOT 'COVERED' in blood.

Re the blood - I've played rugby since I was a young lad, stopped playing last year.

My abiding memory of my rugby playing days was the constant 'perma-cuts' on my legs & arms. Particularly when playing on 3G/4G surfaces where the artificial grass takes the skin right off your knees/elbows and you can wind up getting blood stains all over your bed.

The lads would have trained on a 3G/4G surface so one could reasonably attribute the blood to have come from there.

Not commenting on the trial or the outcome, just a potential source of the blood.

upandcumming

Timothy Bryce wrote: »

Re the blood - I've played rugby since I was a young lad, stopped playing last year.

My abiding memory of my rugby playing days was the constant 'perma-cuts' on my legs & arms. Particularly when playing on 3G/4G surfaces where the artificial grass takes the skin right off your knees/elbows and you can wind up getting blood stains all over your bed.

The lads would have trained on a 3G/4G surface so one could reasonably attribute the blood to have come from there.

Not commenting on the trial or the outcome, just a potential source of the blood.

Of course you're right, but don't be coming in here with that logic. :pac:

Roger Hassenforder

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

as far as i can see the only person who has used the phrase "covered in blood" on this thread is you. and multiple times at that.

Go back a page dude

ohnonotgmail

upandcumming wrote: »

Look harder.

i did. i searched and can only find that phrase used by francie.

Silentcorner

upandcumming wrote: »

Of course you're right, but don't be coming in here with that logic. :pac:

Well actually you are both completely wrong.

It wasn't their blood and it wasn't the young womans blood...it belonged to someone unknown.

Roger Hassenforder

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

i did. i searched and can only find that phrase used by francie.

Appledreams15 wrote: »

Blood all over the bed

?

Grayson

Timothy Bryce wrote: »

Re the blood - I've played rugby since I was a young lad, stopped playing last year.

My abiding memory of my rugby playing days was the constant 'perma-cuts' on my legs & arms. Particularly when playing on 3G/4G surfaces where the artificial grass takes the skin right off your knees/elbows and you can wind up getting blood stains all over your bed.

The lads would have trained on a 3G/4G surface so one could reasonably attribute the blood to have come from there.

Not commenting on the trial or the outcome, just a potential source of the blood.

So the best case scenario for them is that they had sex with a woman on sheets covered in their own blood.

Those rugby guys are a classy lot.

Captain Obvious

Grayson wrote: »

So the best case scenario for them is that they had sex with a woman on sheets covered in their own blood.

Those rugby guys are a classy lot.

Weren't her clothes also bloody?

mfceiling

Grayson wrote: »

covered in their own blood.

Those rugby guys are a classy lot.

Covered?

Are we talking like a butchers floor, an abattoir floor or the scene of a massacre amount of blood?
We're the sheets saturated in blood. Destroyed by blood? Bright screaming red with blood?


Or did they have a few drips of blood on them?

You'd swear jackson had slit someone's throat in that bed the way some of you are describing it.
Talk about the red top papers printing sensationalist rubbish.

mfceiling

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Weren't her clothes also bloody?

Yeah...the room was covered in blood. Her clothes had to have the blood rung out of them. You couldn't see the floor with blood. There was blood on the walls, ceilings and windows.
It was like a scene from Carrie.

FFS like.

Captain Obvious

mfceiling wrote: »

Yeah...the room was covered in blood. Her clothes had to have the blood rung out of them. You couldn't see the floor with blood. There was blood on the walls, ceilings and windows.
It was like a scene from Carrie.

FFS like.

Her trousers had blood on the inside of them didn't they?

mfceiling

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Her trousers had blood on the inside of them didn't they?

Maybe they had but the way some posters are going on here you'd think it was like a scene from Rambo.

Roger Hassenforder

Grayson wrote: »

So the best case scenario for them is that they had sex with a woman on sheets covered in their own blood.

Those rugby guys are a classy lot.

I think its fair to say those lads werent a bit classy.

Innocent though. But definitely not classy.

BBDBB

so young men dont wash their sheets very often

who'd a thought????

FrancieBrady

BBDBB wrote: »

so young men dont wash their sheets very often

who'd a thought????

Sounded like a student gaff to me, with one or two saying they just lay in any bed they could find at sleep time.

Happy days if my fading memory serves me correctly!

BBDBB

well of course we had it tough....

I do remember my parents visiting for graduation and me being mortified when they brought the dog who started to find loads of bits of food to eat on the carpet in the lounge/kitchen area

we also had a bit of mould that went above the sink to the ceiling - we christened it "Beethoven" - because it was cultured

happy days


anyway, that Paddy Jacksons a wrong un

blanch152

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/ulster-rugby/ewan-mackenna-sacking-jackson-and-olding-was-symptomtackling-and-disease-avoidance-36825959.html


This is quite possibly the best article I have read on the whole situation.

"Don't kid yourselves by just accepting what you're told and taking it at face value. The woman didn't matter; the not guilty matter; sportsmen's attitudes didn't matter; the bottom line did. Ultimately this jettisoning of Jackson and Olding has nothing to do with what is right, even if it might feel that way and be sold as such. Instead it's just another form of what is grossly wrong."

Appledreams15

twinytwo wrote: »

I wonder why all these people are not out protesting and whinging about what the garda top ranks conspired to do to garda Mccabe... but then why proest something that actually matters and has far more serious consequences for the country .... reality is it does not suit the little snowflake agendas.

were you out protesting the guards?
Put your money where your mouth is

Roger Hassenforder

Appledreams15 wrote: »

were you out protesting the guards?
Put your money where your mouth is

He might prefer to let due process run its course.

Silentcorner

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/ulster-rugby/ewan-mackenna-sacking-jackson-and-olding-was-symptomtackling-and-disease-avoidance-36825959.html


This is quite possibly the best article I have read on the whole situation.

"Don't kid yourselves by just accepting what you're told and taking it at face value. The woman didn't matter; the not guilty matter; sportsmen's attitudes didn't matter; the bottom line did. Ultimately this jettisoning of Jackson and Olding has nothing to do with what is right, even if it might feel that way and be sold as such. Instead it's just another form of what is grossly wrong."

It was a very good article, you couldn't argue with it. However, the only reason this has damaged the lads so much is because in the North they allow defendants to be named in the media before the trial even begins...it is bats##t crazy...we shouldn't know much about this case, we got over 12 weeks media exposure to it...there was no coming back from that...

I am surprised men haven't been up in arms about this in the North.

Another good article well wroth a read is this one.

http://www.the42.ie/anna-krien-interview-night-games-3963370-Apr2018/ - not about this case but interesting noneltheless.

blanch152

Silentcorner wrote: »

It was a very good article, you couldn't argue with it. However, the only reason this has damaged the lads so much is because in the North they allow defendants to be named in the media before the trial even begins...it is bats##t crazy...we shouldn't know much about this case, we got over 12 weeks media exposure to it...there was no coming back from that...

I am surprised men haven't been up in arms about this in the North.

Another good article well wroth a read is this one.

http://www.the42.ie/anna-krien-interview-night-games-3963370-Apr2018/ - not about this case but interesting noneltheless.

Really good, I particularly liked this line:

"So consent is really an issue, but I really think empathy is most important."

Empathy is the one thing that has been really missing from this case. The four lads obviously lacked it, you could argue the independent witness also lacked it (if you believe the woman), but you then see it in some of the comments from the likes of Appledreams who shows absolutely zero empathy in her posts towards men, and in particular the two guys who have lost their livelihood, despite being not guilty.

If we all had a little more empathy, the world would be a better place.

Sile Na Gig

I wish that we could all stop framing this as a gender war and instead see how the way we are right now is doing a disservice to both boys and girls. I would call it the ‘patriarchy’ but that phrase is red rag to a bull for some.

The fact remains that those boys were socialised to believe that their primary goal was to get something off girls, and the girls to believe that their sexuality is both carrot and stick - a tool to be weaponised and a something of which to be ashamed. All are victims, to be torn apart in the papers, on every street corner and on threads like this.

It would be wonderful if we could put our differences aside and figure out a way to move forward and create a society where men and women can communicate honestly and figure out and respect exactly what each other needs. But hey, we’re probably going to rapaciously defend our individual camps til the whole damn thing comes burning down around our ears.

jm08

blanch152 wrote: »

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/ulster-rugby/ewan-mackenna-sacking-jackson-and-olding-was-symptomtackling-and-disease-avoidance-36825959.html


This is quite possibly the best article I have read on the whole situation.

"Don't kid yourselves by just accepting what you're told and taking it at face value. The woman didn't matter; the not guilty matter; sportsmen's attitudes didn't matter; the bottom line did. Ultimately this jettisoning of Jackson and Olding has nothing to do with what is right, even if it might feel that way and be sold as such. Instead it's just another form of what is grossly wrong."

The bottom line does matter, but what makes the bottom line matter is public opinion in this instance, so I don't see what is so grossly wrong with that.

Usjes

BBDBB wrote: »

anyway, that Paddy Jacksons a wrong un

:pac::pac::pac::pac: