Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

Yeah_Right

facehugger99 wrote: »

I really doubt anyone much cares about your views, much less a mob. perhaps you have an inflated sense of your own importance?

Regardless, the sponsors know that many people are disgusted with Jackson's behavior, they don't want the products they spend millions marketing being soiled through association with him.

It's not terribly difficult to understand and it really doesn't matter what you believe. You are wrong about most things and are surely used to that by now.

No mob required, just a quiet revolution of consumer choice.

The sponsors (and the Twitter mob) didn't seem to care that much about the behaviour of other players in that Whatsapp group. I think it was Darren Cave that said some of the worst stuff and got suspended for a couple of games after apologising. Then everyone forgot about him.

Jackson and Olding get found not guilty on all charges and were involved in the Whatsapp group. And they get run out of town. And Jackson is still being harassed and hounded.

I can't help but think that being acquitted of rape is viewed as a worse crime than sending vulgar and crass Whatsapp messages.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

The mask slips.

So she was 'asking for it' was she Francie?

Presumably being 'promiscuous' or 'celebrity obsessed' or 'drunk' means you're fair game to be refereed to as a slut or passed around like a piece of meat - because you're, to use your words, that "type of woman".

PJ and friends get a pass for that because, hey, she was only a slapper and therefore forgoes the right to any standard of decent treatment?

I honestly believe you to be one of the most morally reprehensible posters on this site, on the majority of issues you spout your ****e about and I sincerely hope that impressionable young readers hold you in the same contempt.

Slut is a descriptor for a promiscuous woman or man.

I would describe somebody who consents to group sex as promiscuous.

Like it or not, there are men and women who enjoy group sex. Not my scene.

If there was evidence that they raped her then I would be the first person calling for a life sentence without possibility of payrole. That is how serious I view rape to be.

I'll ignore your familiar invective at the end.

ohnonotgmail

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Who?

London Irish are in the premiership now :pac::pac::pac::pac:

hands up, i got my dates wrong. last season he was with perpignan. who were relegated. and where jackon was ranked 36 out of 39 flyhalfs in the TOP14 for the season and he wasn't even a regular starter. So not one of the best outhalves in the league by a long stretch.

Gimme A Pound

FrancieBrady wrote: »

People who put protection of a rigorous moral code before the ordinary decent humanity of live and let live. People who insist that others live to their version of that code and if they fall off never allow them to make amends.

Who's doing that here? :confused;

Nobody lives who hasn't made a mistake or done something they are not proud of. Does everyone pay an equal price? Not according to the modern phenomenon of the twitter mob.

Bit more than a "mistake". I'm not part of the Twitter mob, and all I did was give an opinion.

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Do you ever wonder why so many pro football players get hookers?

Because they know there's a good chance if they bang a random bird from a club they'll make up lies or get up the duff.

It's not really safe for a random lad to have a one night stand anymore, you never know what she'll say the next morning, nevermind a rich celebrity.

What on earth does that have to do with the post you quoted?

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Try saying that in future and you won't get called out on it. And well done with your extra bit of stereotyping. :rolleyes:

One sentence that makes no sense (something about me using the word "the") and nothing more? Well that showed me. Oh yeah there was a rolleyes. You should try not to be so hostile to people merely refuting you with just two posts.

FrancieBrady

Lacey Rapping Equalizer wrote: »

Who's doing that here? :confused;

Bit more than a "mistake". I'm not part of the Twitter mob, and all I did was give an opinion.

What on earth does that have to do with the post you quoted?

One sentence that makes no sense (something about me using the word "the") and nothing more? Well that showed me. Oh yeah there was a rolleyes. You should try not to be so hostile to people merely refuting you with just two posts.

You said 'their attitude to women' in your OP, when it should have been 'the women' involved on the night out.

There is absolutely no evidence that they have that attitude to all women.

seamus

Jackman25 wrote: »

Sponsors are reacting to the Twitter shaming Mob which is your modern day pitch fork brigade for hounding "the fallen".
Jackson has been punished terribly since the incident, his name to be forever associated with it, a promising career and employment destroyed as outlined so gleefully above by facehugger (a self-appointed representative of "polite society"). His behaviour and that of the other lads obviously left quite a bit to be desired and extremely harsh lessons have been learned and I'd say a lot in elite sporting circles have learnt quite a bit too.
It is beyond time to stop the hounding and bullying campaigns against them and give them a chance to rebuild their lives somewhat.
But mercy and forgiveness are anathema to the social media mob, often the more righteous and virtuous, the more vicious the bully as we have seen so much of in this country.

This is all just purely your opinion though. Other people have other opinions.

Sponsors go with the majority. The majority of people have opinions that don't line up with yours. And the more you try to wave it away by claiming PJ is a victim, someone who made a small error, "boys will be boys", etc., the more you push people the other way.

You might believe that's unfortunate for Jackson, but this is the nature of relying on public image for your income; you've got to appease the majority, your personal opinion is irrelevant.

wiggle16

Jackman25 wrote: »

Do you feel it is fair to keep hounding an innocent man out of employment and for how long should it continue? Should he never again be allowed work?

Did I say anything to that effect? Did I say he should never again be allowed to work?

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

You said 'their attitude to women' in your OP, when it should have been 'the women' involved on the night out.

Perhaps PJ and friends have a Venn diagram of morality against which they assessed women.

In one circle were any women that have a few drinks or are "celebrity obsessed or who are "promiscuous" - perhaps you'd give us a definition of what makes a woman promiscuous Francie?
These are the sluts presumably - pretty much anything goes for these ladies and sure if a teenager ends up leaving your house in the middle of the night crying and vaginally bleeding from being passed around like a piece of meat - that's ok - right?


In the other circle are teetotaller virgins not interested in celebrity gossip. Wonder how many women fit into this description?

FrancieBrady

seamus wrote: »

This is all just purely your opinion though. Other people have other opinions.

Sponsors go with the majority. The majority of people have opinions that don't line up with yours. And the more you try to wave it away by claiming PJ is a victim, someone who made a small error, "boys will be boys", etc., the more you push people the other way.

You might believe that's unfortunate for Jackson, but this is the nature of relying on public image for your income; you've got to appease the majority, your personal opinion is irrelevant.

He doesn't 'rely' on his public image for an income, he relies on his talent at rugby. And so far that has won out as he has been in a job and still is.

Jackman25

seamus wrote: »

This is all just purely your opinion though. Other people have other opinions.

Sponsors go with the majority. The majority of people have opinions that don't line up with yours. And the more you try to wave it away by claiming PJ is a victim, someone who made a small error, "boys will be boys", etc., the more you push people the other way.

You might believe that's unfortunate for Jackson, but this is the nature of relying on public image for your income; you've got to appease the majority, your personal opinion is irrelevant.

How do you know that? Can you link to where a majority of people think that Jackson should be hounded out of London Irish or that Diageo shouldn't sponsor them if he plays?

Jackman25

wiggle16 wrote: »

Did I say anything to that effect? Did I say he should never again be allowed to work?

I never said you did, that is why I am asking for your opinion.

Gimme A Pound

facehugger99 wrote: »

a teenager ends up leaving your house in the middle of the night crying and vaginally bleeding from being passed around like a piece of meat

Saudi Arabia sh1t.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

Perhaps PJ and friends have a Venn diagram of morality against which they assessed women.

In one circle were any women that have a few drinks or are "celebrity obsessed or who are "promiscuous" - perhaps you'd give us a definition of what makes a woman promiscuous Francie?
These are the sluts presumably - pretty much anything goes for these ladies and sure if a teenager ends up leaving your house in the middle of the night crying and vaginally bleeding from being passed around like a piece of meat - that's ok - right?


In the other circle are teetotaller virgins not interested in celebrity gossip. Wonder how many women fit into this description?

Wave away that mist of anger and have another go there. You make no sense to me.

For clarity: 'Slut' is a word which describes a woman or man who is promiscuous. It wouldn't be my choice of word, but then I am sure I might use words that other people might not like too.
'Promiscuous' to me is somebody who is interested in sex for the sake of having sex and is not bothered with a relationship.
As these lads (like a lot of young men, including myself when young and foolish) where on the town wanting to meet such a promiscuous woman, I doubt they were using the word in a strictly pejorative way. Every weekend you will see men and women meet at places called nightclubs etc. Not all of them are promiscuous, nor are all of them looking for promiscuous people but to live in denial that it happens as a normal part of youth is delusional.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He doesn't 'rely' on his public image for an income, he relies on his talent at rugby. And so far that has won out as he has been in a job and still is.

If all he relied on was his talent at rugby he would not be in the position he is now. He would not have spent a season at the worst club in the TOP14. The fact is he does rely on his public image because potential employers take that into account.

Hannibal_Smith

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Wave away that mist of anger and have another go there. You make no sense to me.

For clarity: 'Slut' is a word which describes a woman or man who is promiscuous. It wouldn't be my choice of word, but then I am sure I might use words that other people might not like too.
'Promiscuous' to me is somebody who is interested in sex for the sake of having sex and is not bothered with a relationship.
As these lads (like a lot of young men, including myself when young and foolish) where on the town wanting to meet such a promiscuous woman, I doubt they were using the word in a strictly pejorative way. Every weekend you will see men and women meet at places called nightclubs etc. Not all of them are promiscuous, nor are all of them looking for promiscuous people but to live in denial that it happens as a normal part of youth is delusional.

Did you not post last night suggesting the word slut has positive connotations?

Roger Hassenforder

facehugger99 wrote: »

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

Again, in the context of the thread title.
What rape?

Clue: according to a jury, who were privy to a lot more than you or I, there was no rape.

Im confused all right, whether you're simply blissfully ignorant, uninformed, or saying the lads were actually guilty?

You seem to be - not to mention lacking a bit of basic reading comprehension.

SirGerryAdams wrote: »

Fcuk the sponsors! They love Gareth Williams even though he was banging men behind his wife's back bareback! Far far worse than anything PJ was accused of!

Honestly, I wouldn't have the time or patience to handhold you through a discussion. If you're unable to keep up, I suggest you bow out.

Mother of god, i hadnt anticipated it would be all three.
And a hypocritical poltroon to boot.

no wonder I was confused, i had wholly underestimated your ignorance. Thats on me. Wont happen again.

FrancieBrady

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Did you not post last night suggesting the word slut has positive connotations?

I posted a Wickidictionary definition that suggested that in the modern age it can have positive connotations. Which is why I said that they may not have been using it here in a pejorative sense...as they were clearly looking for a promiscuous young woman like many young fellas are on a night out. Vice versa for women who are looking for sex for sex sake.

Hannibal_Smith

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I posted a Wickidictionary definition that suggested that in the modern age it can have positive connotations. Which is why I said that they may not have been using it here in a pejorative sense...as they were clearly looking for a promiscuous young woman like many young fellas are on a night out. Vice versa for women who are looking for sex for sex sake.

I've never heard it used in a positive way. Fellas and girls hooking up on a night out does not earn the girls the title of slut.

People may have different views on the case and if you are trying to see the good in the messages, fair play. But I don't think it's too big of a jump to see why people might not think they are OK?

suicide_circus

i think the word slut can be used with success in the boudoir

mfceiling

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

He was never at the same level as Jackson and wasnt even a regular for Ulster. He is only at brive because Jeremy Davidson is their manager.

You never watched much of Ulster then? Olding was very much a starter when he wasn't injured. Could play 10, 12, 13 or 15 easily. He was a brilliant player and was been Brive's best player last year.
Can't say he wasn't the same level as Jackson as he wasn't a starting 10 for Ulster.

FrancieBrady

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I've never heard it used in a positive way. Fellas and girls hooking up on a night out does not earn the girls the title of slut.

People may have different views on the case and if you are trying to see the good in the messages, fair play. But I don't think it's too big of a jump to see why people might not think they are OK?

I've heard girls call each other 'sluts' in a complimentary way. A bit like 'you are a ride'.

I am not trying to see the 'good' in the whatsapp messages. They are nothing to be proud of. But in the greater scheme of things are they worthy of following a guy to the end of his career trying to shout and roar his chances of completing it down?

ohnonotgmail

mfceiling wrote: »

You never watched much of Ulster then? Olding was very much a starter when he wasn't injured. Could play 10, 12, 13 or 15 easily. He was a brilliant player and was been Brive's best player last year.
Can't say he wasn't the same level as Jackson as he wasn't a starting 10 for Ulster.

Brive were in the second tier of french rugby so hardly a massive achievement.

mfceiling

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If all he relied on was his talent at rugby he would not be in the position he is now. He would not have spent a season at the worst club in the TOP14. The fact is he does rely on his public image because potential employers take that into account.

Only because no other team would go near him due to the mob waiting with their pitchforks. He was the reserve 10 for Ireland and was the starting 10 when they won their first test match in SA. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean you can wave away his talent.

mfceiling

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Brive were in the second tier of french rugby so hardly a massive achievement.

Did you watch any of their games? Do you know the standard of the rugby? Did you ever actually ever see Olding play...Ever?

Muahahaha

facehugger99 wrote: »

Regardless, the sponsors know that many people are disgusted with Jackson's behavior, they don't want the products they spend millions marketing being soiled through association with him.

Thats just it in a nutshell, sponsors spend money promoting their product that they've spent years and many millions to market. As soon as there is any sign of controversy associated with their brand then the brand itself becomes in danger and they've no choice but to run a mile to save the brand from being tarnished forever.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

He doesn't 'rely' on his public image for an income, he relies on his talent at rugby. And so far that has won out as he has been in a job and still is.

Well he does Francie, when he plays for a club he represents the sponsors and if his public image gets them in trouble then he's in trouble. This is true of all professional sports players, their contracts stipulate that bringing the club or sponsors into disrepute is a big no-no and doing so allows the club to terminate the contract, which is exactly what the IRFU and Ulster did. Any professional sports person relies on both their talent and their public image

ohnonotgmail

mfceiling wrote: »

Only because no other team would go near him due to the mob waiting with their pitchforks. He was the reserve 10 for Ireland and was the starting 10 when they won their first test match in SA. Just because you don't like him doesn't mean you can wave away his talent.

I'm not waving away his talent. I'm saying it is not enough. His image counts as well.

mfceiling

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm not waving away his talent. I'm saying it is not enough. His image counts as well.

Which is now tarnished forever even though no charges were brought against him.
That's the modern way now. Make any mistake and you're fcuked forever.

Jackman25

mfceiling wrote: »

Which is now tarnished forever even though no charges were brought against him.
That's the modern way now. Make any mistake and you're fcuked forever.

Its funny, that the same people even on this thread who are gleefully supporting further persecution of PJ would tell you that longer prison sentences don't work, that rehabilitation is better.
But they won't have any rehabilitation or second chance for PJ for his supposed "crimes".
He is not the right type you see, a white privileged, elite sports star. There are no virtue points for saying that maybe he has been persecuted enough and to let him get on with this life.
The hypocrisy of the left, I think they call it.

Jackman25

Muahahaha wrote: »

Thats just it in a nutshell, sponsors spend money promoting their product that they've spent years and many millions to market. As soon as there is any sign of controversy associated with their brand then the brand itself becomes in danger and they've no choice but to run a mile to save the brand from being tarnished forever.



Well he does Francie, when he plays for a club he represents the sponsors and if his public image gets them in trouble then he's in trouble. This is true of all professional sports players, their contracts stipulate that bringing the club or sponsors into disrepute is a big no-no and doing so allows the club to terminate the contract, which is exactly what the IRFU and Ulster did. Any professional sports person relies on both their talent and their public image

So do you support hounding the sponsors on twitter to force Jackson out of work?

FrancieBrady

Muahahaha wrote: »

Thats just it in a nutshell, sponsors spend money promoting their product that they've spent years and many millions to market. As soon as there is any sign of controversy associated with their brand then the brand itself becomes in danger and they've no choice but to run a mile to save the brand from being tarnished forever.



Well he does Francie, when he plays for a club he represents the sponsors and if his public image gets them in trouble then he's in trouble. This is true of all professional sports players, their contracts stipulate that bringing the club or sponsors into disrepute is a big no-no and doing so allows the club to terminate the contract, which is exactly what the IRFU and Ulster did. Any professional sports person relies on both their talent and their public image

So how do you explain him earning an income for the last number of years and a lucrative contract at London Irish?

That is because he is good at what he does. His 'public image' is secondary and as we have seen not really in his control.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So how do you explain him earning an income for the last number of years and a lucrative contract at London Irish?

That is because he is good at what he does. His 'public image' is secondary and as we have seen not really in his control.

and if it wasnt for his **** image he would still be at Ulster and probably going to the world cup. You seem intent on sabotaging your own point.

Roger Hassenforder

If people want to be consistent, they might consider getting involved in another campaign about a feted sports star who was actually convicted of sexual assault along with his buddies of a 14yr old girl, in this jurisdiction, they might support:

https://www.change.org/p/waterford-football-club-alan-reynolds-waterford-fc-team-manager-fire-convicted-sex-offender-izzy-akinade

Probably be a better use of their time than working themselves up, and complaining to sponsors about an innocent man's unsavoury whatsapp conversation.

https://www.politicalirish.com/threads/standing-ovation-at-bohemian-fc-for-nigerian-ismahil-akinade-who-sexually-abused-teenage-girl.13264/

https://web.archive.org/web/20141102004824/http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/three-men-sentenced-for-sexual-abuse-of-teenage-girl-1.1984164

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

So how do you explain him earning an income for the last number of years and a lucrative contract at London Irish?

That is because he is good at what he does. His 'public image' is secondary and as we have seen not really in his control.

You're talking ****e as usual Francie lad.

Post up the details of Jackson's contract so we can determine it's lucrativeness.

Jackson is in total control of his public image and has only himself to blame for the contempt in which he is held.

His 'public image' is the reason his contract with the IRFU was terminated. Any contract of this nature will include termination grounds for bringing the game or organisation into disrepute.

facehugger99

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If people want to be consistent, they might consider getting involved in another campaign about a feted sports star who was actually convicted of sexual assault along with his buddies of a 14yr old girl, in this jurisdiction, they might support:

https://www.change.org/p/waterford-football-club-alan-reynolds-waterford-fc-team-manager-fire-convicted-sex-offender-izzy-akinade

Probably be a better use of their time than working themselves up, and complaining to sponsors about an innocent man's unsavoury whatsapp conversation.

https://www.politicalirish.com/threads/standing-ovation-at-bohemian-fc-for-nigerian-ismahil-akinade-who-sexually-abused-teenage-girl.13264/

https://web.archive.org/web/20141102004824/http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/three-men-sentenced-for-sexual-abuse-of-teenage-girl-1.1984164

Why don't you start a thread about it?

Whataboutery nonsense.

DavidLyons_

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If people want to be consistent, they might consider getting involved in another campaign about a feted sports star who was actually convicted of sexual assault along with his buddies of a 14yr old girl, in this jurisdiction, they might support:

https://www.change.org/p/waterford-football-club-alan-reynolds-waterford-fc-team-manager-fire-convicted-sex-offender-izzy-akinade

Probably be a better use of their time than working themselves up, and complaining to sponsors about an innocent man's unsavoury whatsapp conversation.

https://www.politicalirish.com/threads/standing-ovation-at-bohemian-fc-for-nigerian-ismahil-akinade-who-sexually-abused-teenage-girl.13264/

https://web.archive.org/web/20141102004824/http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/three-men-sentenced-for-sexual-abuse-of-teenage-girl-1.1984164

The cretinous individuals up in arms over Jackson won’t touch that one with a barge pole.

Doesn’t fit their agenda because the “GULTY” offender isn’t a privileged, white rugby player.

ohnonotgmail

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

The cretinous individuals up in arms over Jackson won’t touch that one with a barge pole.

Doesn’t fit their agenda because the “GULTY” offender isn’t a privileged, white rugby player.

what have you dont about it?

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

and if it wasnt for his **** image he would still be at Ulster and probably going to the world cup. You seem intent on sabotaging your own point.

And he got a job elsewhere. His image was secondary to his ability. It's not rocket science to work that out.

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And he got a job elsewhere. His image was secondary to his ability. It's not rocket science to work that out.

he got another job. a job that was not as good. You are tying yourself up in knots trying to defend your ridiculous position.

DavidLyons_

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

The cretinous individuals up in arms over Jackson won’t touch that one with a barge pole.

Doesn’t fit their agenda because the “GULTY” offender isn’t a privileged, white rugby player.

what have you dont about it?

Why do I need to do anything about it? Akinade was tried, convicted and sentenced. I don’t really agree with the leniency, but that’s the justice system.

Jackson (the topic of this thread) was tried AND ACQUITTED. Very different to the Akinade situation but some absolute morons can’t leave the man alone to get on with his life.

I’d say the comparison of reactions is fair.

FrancieBrady

facehugger99 wrote: »

You're talking ****e as usual Francie lad.

Post up the details of Jackson's contract so we can determine it's lucrativeness.

Ah diddums, are you worried he might be getting paid more than you think he is worth?
A professional premiership contract is lucrative no matter what way you look at it. He is earning a great deal more than most ordinary people.

Jackson is in total control of his public image and has only himself to blame for the contempt in which he is held.

His 'public image' is the reason his contract with the IRFU was terminated. Any contract of this nature will include termination grounds for bringing the game or organisation into disrepute.

High moral ground asshats are the reason his contract with the IRFU was terminated.
When you have people inferring he is guilty of rape contrary to the findings of a jury, he most definitely is not in 'control' of his image.

ohnonotgmail

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Why do I need to do anything about it? Akinade was tried, convicted and sentenced. I don’t really agree with the leniency, but that’s the justice system.

Jackson (the topic of this thread) was tried AND ACQUITTED. Very different to the Akinade situation but some absolute morons can’t leave the man alone to get on with his life.

I’d say the comparison of reactions is fair.

so you complain about others not getting involved in a campaign when you have not bothered getting involved yourself?

facehugger99

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Very different to the Akinade situation

So, why are you confused about the different reactions to the 2 cases again?

ohnonotgmail

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah diddums, are you worried he might be getting paid more than you think he is worth?
A professional premiership contract is lucrative no matter what way you look at it. He is earning a great deal more than most ordinary people.

if you cant see that he has taken a step down from his position at ulster there really isnt much point talking to you.

facehugger99

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Ah diddums, are you worried he might be getting paid more than you think he is worth?
A professional premiership contract is lucrative no matter what way you look at it. He is earning a great deal more than most ordinary people.

Once again, will you post up his contract details so we can determine the amount of ****e you are talking?

It's ok BTW to admit you haven't a clue and were talking bollox.

FrancieBrady

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

if you cant see that he has taken a step down from his position at ulster there really isnt much point talking to you.

Of course he has taken a step down.
But his ability to play rugby...his primary asset was enough to get him a job elsewhere and despite the 'image' manufactured for him by the twitter mob has gotten him a job at a premiership club.

DavidLyons_

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

Why do I need to do anything about it? Akinade was tried, convicted and sentenced. I don’t really agree with the leniency, but that’s the justice system.

Jackson (the topic of this thread) was tried AND ACQUITTED. Very different to the Akinade situation but some absolute morons can’t leave the man alone to get on with his life.

I’d say the comparison of reactions is fair.

so you complain about others not getting involved in a campaign when you have not bothered getting involved yourself?

No, you seem to be having difficulty understanding that the hypocrisy of people complaining/hounding/witch hunting/condemning Jackson whilst Akinade got a free pass to get on with his career and life is astounding.

I ACCEPT BOTH VERDICTS!!!

One man tried, convicted, sentenced for sexual assault got on with his sporting career whilst another, tried and acquitted of sexual assault has been vilified, pursued and hounded by ignorant, I’ll-informed half-wits.

Roger Hassenforder

facehugger99 wrote: »

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If people want to be consistent, they might consider getting involved in another campaign about a feted sports star who was actually convicted of sexual assault along with his buddies of a 14yr old girl, in this jurisdiction, they might support:https:/www.change.org/p/waterford-football-club-alan-reynolds-waterford-fc-team-manager-fire-convicted-sex-offender-izzy-akinadeProbably be a better use of their time than working themselves up, and complaining to sponsors about an innocent man's unsavoury whatsapp conversation.https://www.politicalirish.com/threads/standing-ovation-at-bohemian-fc-for-nigerian-ismahil-akinade-who-sexually-abused-teenage-girl.13264/https://web.archive.org/web/20141102004824/http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/three-men-sentenced-for-sexual-abuse-of-teenage-girl-1.1984164

Why don't you start a thread about it?Whataboutery nonsense.

facehugger99 wrote: »

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

If people want to be consistent, they might consider getting involved in another campaign about a feted sports star who was actually convicted of sexual assault along with his buddies of a 14yr old girl, in this jurisdiction, they might support:

https://www.change.org/p/waterford-football-club-alan-reynolds-waterford-fc-team-manager-fire-convicted-sex-offender-izzy-akinade

Probably be a better use of their time than working themselves up, and complaining to sponsors about an innocent man's unsavoury whatsapp conversation.

https://www.politicalirish.com/threads/standing-ovation-at-bohemian-fc-for-nigerian-ismahil-akinade-who-sexually-abused-teenage-girl.13264/

https://web.archive.org/web/20141102004824/http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/three-men-sentenced-for-sexual-abuse-of-teenage-girl-1.1984164

Why don't you start a thread about it?

Whataboutery nonsense.

Ah, my favourite uninformed poster.
With the comprehension issue.

"Whataboutery" indeed.
Whataboutconsistency?
What about condemning an actual convicted "sports star"? If that is your want? Or are there only certain categories of victim you care about? Certain categories of perpetrator you feel excercised enough to rail against their acquittal, and demanding a proverbial pound of flesh for unsavoury whatsapp messages and behaviour?

ohnonotgmail

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

No, you seem to be having difficulty understanding that the hypocrisy of people complaining/hounding/witch hunting/condemning Jackson whilst Akinade got a free pass to get on with his career and life is astounding.

I ACCEPT BOTH VERDICTS!!!

One man tried, convicted, sentenced for sexual assault got on with his sporting career whilst another, tried and acquitted of sexual assault has been vilified, pursued and hounded by ignorant, I’ll-informed half-wits.

Start a thread on him and i'll be happy to contribute.

DavidLyons_

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

DavidLyons_ wrote: »

No, you seem to be having difficulty understanding that the hypocrisy of people complaining/hounding/witch hunting/condemning Jackson whilst Akinade got a free pass to get on with his career and life is astounding.

I ACCEPT BOTH VERDICTS!!!

One man tried, convicted, sentenced for sexual assault got on with his sporting career whilst another, tried and acquitted of sexual assault has been vilified, pursued and hounded by ignorant, I’ll-informed half-wits.

Start a thread on him and i'll be happy to contribute.

Again why. He was tried, convicted and sentenced. I accept the outcome.

I also accept the acquittal of Jackson.

Not sure why you’re struggling to understand this.

Faugheen

The same people complaining about the lack of chat against Akinade are the same people who would say he served his time if there was uproar about it.