Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

joe40

tritium wrote: »

joe40 wrote: »

I would actually agree with that, but the thing is that advice is given all the time. Parents give that advice to their kids, schools give loads of advice around dangers of alcohol and drugs and the likelihood of high risk behavior including sexual behaviour that you may regret. Boys and girls are told this constantly.
Linking behaviour advice to actual events is problematic, it is never the victims fault in any crime.
Comparing this to road safety is not a valid comparison, you are responsible when trying to minimise accidents. Crime including rape is never an accident.

I never linked this to a crime. Whether we like it or not there was technically no crime here. At the end of this non- crime there are however five victims all of whom believe they told the truth and were wronged. That’s not really a great outcome is it?

Well and good saying it’s given all the time. Why isn’t it working so. Why are so many young men and women getting smashed and doing dumb things? And oddly it’s the same dumb things the generation before did. Maybe we should try the message a different way?

Sorry I wasn't referring to this case or your post at that stage I was just talking about crimes in general, whether unprovoked attacks or sexual crimes. Typing on a phone is a pain and quite slow so may not have expressed myself properly.

FrancieBrady

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Twenty two. Many men had started rearing a family at that age.

Though i think Olding is the best of the lot of them. Only my opinion but i find the other fella very arrogant.

Of course no married man would ever disrespect a woman or do anything stupid or make a mistake.

Grayson

NAGDEFI wrote: »

The easy way out is 'the mob'. The pro Jacko crowd are a 'mob' too.

People are entitled to judge whether these men are mysogynistic blackguards who aren't fit to represent their country.

Children imitate these guys so much. You need some sort of standards.

Yeah 60% of the country are a mob.. BS. And the 30-40% are enlightened..

I believe the other phrase that was used was feminazi's. So 60% of the country are feminazi's

Strangely I don't think anyone had labeled the players supporters. Whereas the players supporters have tried to label everyone who disagrees with them.

mfceiling

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Twenty two. Many men had started rearing a family at that age..

And many hadn't.
My father started his family at 23. Me at 30. My brother at 38. My neighbour at 18.

What's the point again? Oh yeah....something, something you are an adult at 21 and should have made all your mistakes by then.

FrancieBrady

Grayson wrote: »

I believe the other phrase that was used was feminazi's. So 60% of the country are feminazi's

Strangely I don't think anyone had labeled the players supporters. Whereas the players supporters have tried to label everyone who disagrees with them.

I don't think any of the players supporters have taken to the streets trying to undermine the verdict of a jury in another jurisdiction. #ibelieveher

Mob, is a perfect description.

NAGDEFI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course no married man would ever disrespect a woman or do anything stupid or make a mistake.

Well if he had a young child to be fed it might knock some of the urge to be with the best mate every minute of the day.

I'm making the point 22 is old enough to have cop on.

Grayson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Of course no married man would ever disrespect a woman or do anything stupid or make a mistake.

If a married man hurt his wife so much that the bed was covered in her blood and she ran away in tears. And then joked about it the next day I'd call him a cnut. And I wouldn't call what he did a "mistake".


Ah but that's perfectly acceptable to you. You hear that and think "give that man a job".

NAGDEFI

mfceiling wrote: »

And many hadn't.
My father started his family at 23. Me at 30. My brother at 38. My neighbour at 18.

What's the point again? Oh yeah....something, something you are an adult at 21 and should have made all your mistakes by then.

The point is at 22 your old enough to have cop on. He was being referred to as only 22.

Muahahaha

BBDBB wrote: »

I never realised we must stop learning at 21

after that

no more education,

by 21 all lives lessons must be learned and ingrained as behavioural patterns

Well I never said any of what you are saying above. What I am saying is that if you have not learnt how to respect women by the age of 21 then that is on them. They went to the best schools and have good parents yet still they behaved like children. If Jackson and Olding were horny teenagers of 17 or 18 then there is some leeway for them. But at 24 (22 in Oldings case as Tretorn pointed out) they no longer have the defence of being giddy teenagers. Your argument is actually identical to Willie McBrides yesterday "ah sure they are only young lads"- at what point do you expect them to behave appropriately towards women- is 26 okay for you or should we allow them to be derogatory towards women until they are 30 because "they are only young lads"? If they havent grown up by 22/24 then chances are they never will. I feel sorry for the shame they have brought on their parents, there is no way they brought them up in this way.

FrancieBrady

Grayson wrote: »

If a married man hurt his wife so much that the bed was covered in her blood and she ran away in tears. And then joked about it the next day I'd call him a cnut. And I wouldn't call what he did a "mistake".


Ah but that's perfectly acceptable to you. You hear that and think "give that man a job".

Fed up dealing with hysterical sensationalism about this case. I'll just ignore it from now on Grayson.

BBDBB

meeeeh wrote: »

Normally no, but you are not entitled to a career that so heavily rests on adulation of the fans. It's a career that is richly rewarded but also precarious. A talent is worth very little if you can't monetize it. Nobody is overly worried where the other two work or will work but they don't need an approval of the masses to do their job.

hang on, "not entitled"??

The relationship of "adoration" of fans is a two way street

The player (of most professional sports) raises his or her arms aloft in triumph at some victory or other and the crowd cheers and applauds in response. (Tennis, Golf, Football, Rugby, GAA, etc etc. The more significant the moment the more the crowd applaud and cheer. The player raises their game at that expectation. Its symbiotic, they feed off each other

Its entirely an earned adulation, if the player doesnt perform, misses a chance, fails to prevent a score, the crowd let them know. This is true of every player in every sports team

If a sportsperson is on the field and makes a howling error the crowd are more than capable and willing to express their disappointment and dissatisfaction with boos and shouts. They do at every sporting venue wherever spectators gather


Let the public decide whether they are willing to let PJ and SO back into the Ulster and Ireland shirts by playing them and see if they are willing to pay to watch them


If gates are down it shows that people aren't comfortable with them representing their province or country. If the crowd are on their back regarding their off field behaviour they will let them know.

If you want your opportunity to shout your disapproval, then an Ulster game from the terraces is a perfect place for you to do so

FrancieBrady

Muahahaha wrote: »

Well I never said any of what you are saying above. What I am saying is that if you have not learnt how to respect women by the age of 21 then that is on them. They went to the best schools and have good parents yet still they behaved like children. If Jackson and Olding were horny teenagers of 17 or 18 then there is some leeway for them. But at 24 (22 in Oldings case as Tretorn pointed out) they no longer have the defence of being giddy teenagers. Your argument is actually identical to Willie McBrides yesterday "ah sure they are only young lads"- at what point do you expect them to behave appropriately towards women- is 26 okay for you or should we allow them to be derogatory towards women until they are 30 because "they are only young lads"? If they havent grown up by 22/24 then chances are they never will. I feel sorry for the shame they have brought on their parents, there is no way they brought them up in this way.

There is a massive assumption in there that what they were doing was not consensual.

Mrsmum

BBDBB wrote: »

Fair point NAGDEFI

we each must defend the line of what we deem as acceptable

To be clear I dont think what the 4 lads did was acceptable, it was a pretty low and disrespectful way to treat a girl. No question

However, do I believe that they should be forced to work out of the country because of it?
No

Theres a line of acceptable behaviour
Theres also a line of whats a reasonable and commensurate punishment for the 'crime'

For me, two years of hell, suspension from work, a 9 week trial that Ive put myself and my family through and then the ****storm that has followed online and in the media. For a Not Guilty verdict I think they've been punished enough for their crossing of a line which we cant agree on

Imo playing for your country is an enormous honour which few people achieve and the supporters, indeed the whole country look on their team with such pride. Because I think you posted quite a reasonable post I am genuinely interested in whether you would have zero problem with them putting on the sacred green jersey & playing for Ireland considering you say their behaviour was unacceptable ? If you yourself have no problem but accept a substantial number of people are repelled by them, how do we let them back without giving the two fingers to those people, that critical mass of people, whose pride in the whole team would be sullied by their presence. How do we let them back without condoning their disgusting behaviours and attitude to women. Because it's kinda now at the point where as you said yourself "we each must defend the line of what we deem as acceptable",

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

If a married man hurt his wife so much that the bed was covered in her blood and she ran away in tears. And then joked about it the next day I'd call him a cnut. And I wouldn't call what he did a "mistake".


Ah but that's perfectly acceptable to you. You hear that and think "give that man a job".

Fed up dealing with hysterical sensationalism about this case. I'll just ignore it from now on Grayson.

It's not sensationalist.

Jackson and Olding have acknowledged she was upset.

Jackson and a doctor both said she was bleeding.

Rory Harrison told Blane McIlroy that she was in hysterics.

Jackson and Olding did that. There's nothing 'sensationalist' about that.

You haven't a leg to stand on, so instead of holding your hands up you try to weasel your way out of it and take some sort of high ground.

You've been so far out of your depth in this conversation it's unreal.

NAGDEFI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Fed up dealing with hysterical sensationalism about this case. I'll just ignore it from now on Grayson.

Did you ever hear the phrase Francie 'They're all out of step only Johnny'?:D

Maybe when over half the country don't agree with you there might be some merit in their arguments. Ah no..couldn't be right, easier to believe i'm right and the rest of them are hysterics..

Stheno

Grayson wrote: »

I believe the other phrase that was used was feminazi's. So 60% of the country are feminazi's

Strangely I don't think anyone had labeled the players supporters. Whereas the players supporters have tried to label everyone who disagrees with them.

Im a rugby supporter, have a Leinster season ticket and in the past have literally arranged holidays around e.g. the Rugby World Cup

I'm also female and played rugby in the nineties.

I know the players have been found not guilty but frankly if i was lucky enough to go to an Irish squad training day I'm not sure it would sit well with me if they were there signing autographs

Muahahaha

Grayson wrote: »

I believe the other phrase that was used was feminazi's. So 60% of the country are feminazi's

Strangely I don't think anyone had labeled the players supporters. Whereas the players supporters have tried to label everyone who disagrees with them.

I think posters on here who do not wish to see them play for Ireland again have been very measured in this discussion. It only seem to be Jacksons and Oldings supporters who are engaging in the name calling on this thread. It reflects badly on them as name calling is the first refuge of someone who feels they are losing an argument. It is also reflective of the fact they cannot see (or dont want to see) any problems whatsoever with Jackson and Olding pulling on the Irish jersey again. I suppose if you are willing to ignore the players dreadful behaviour it shouldnt be all that surprising that you would lower the tone of the debate to childish name calling and pigeon holing. It is the stuff you would expect in a school yard to be perfectly honest.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

It's not sensationalist.

Jackson and Olding have acknowledged she was upset.

Jackson and a doctor both said she was bleeding.

Rory Harrison told Blane McIlroy that she was in hysterics.

Jackson and Olding did that. There's nothing 'sensationalist' about that.

You haven't a leg to stand on, so instead of holding your hands up you try to weasel your way out of it and take some sort of high ground.

You've been so far out of your depth in this conversation it's unreal.

Here's what he said.

If a married man hurt his wife so much that the bed was covered in her blood and she ran away in tears. And then joked about it the next day I'd call him a cnut.

Show me the evidence that said the 'bed was covered in her blood'
Show me the evidence that showed she 'ran away in tears'
Show me the evidence that they 'joked about' the above the next day,

Muahahaha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

There is a massive assumption in there that what they were doing was not consensual.

Not sure where you are reading that Francie, can you point it out? Because I am only referring to how they treated and spoke about that girl, I accept the juries verdict and always have.

Faugheen

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think posters on here who do not wish to see them play for Ireland again have been very measured in this discussion. It only seem to be Jacksons and Oldings supporters who are engaging in the name calling on this thread. It reflects badly on them as name calling is the first refuge of someone who feels they are losing an argument. It is also reflective of the fact they cannot see (or dont want to see) any problems whatsoever with Jackson and Olding pulling on the Irish jersey again. I suppose if you are willing to ignore the players dreadful behaviour it shouldnt be all that surprising that you would lower the tone of the debate to childish name calling and pigeon holing. It is the stuff you would expect in a school yard to be perfectly honest.

Or you make an honest effort to spell out your point to them and they reply with:

'...but they were found not guilty.'

Everyone else has moved past the verdict except for Jackson and Oldings supporters.

joe40

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Grayson wrote: »

I believe the other phrase that was used was feminazi's. So 60% of the country are feminazi's

Strangely I don't think anyone had labeled the players supporters. Whereas the players supporters have tried to label everyone who disagrees with them.

I don't think any of the players supporters have taken to the streets trying to undermine the verdict of a jury in another jurisdiction. #ibelieveher

Mob, is a perfect description.

That is the problem in your argument and I honestly can't work out whether it is deliberate deflection or not.
There are people who publicly protested the verdict, I only know one or two and they are overall a comparatively small number and not that representative, but loud on social media.
There are people that fully accept the verdict, possibly reached the same conclusion themselves, but believe the behaviour of these men was extremely poor when you view all the events together. They may or may not have a problem with the men representing their country again.
These disparate groups of people are not some homogenous rabble of "feminazis" or "erstwhile catholics" (I did like that one though)
I'm going with deliberate deflection you come across in other threads as reasonably intelligent.

Grayson

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I don't think any of the players supporters have taken to the streets trying to undermine the verdict of a jury in another jurisdiction. #ibelieveher

Mob, is a perfect description.

I think you need to look up the definition of mob. And look up the definition of undermine.

There were protests across the country including in Belfast (which in case you didn't know is the same jurisdiction). Did any of the protests call for the verdict to be overturned? Did any call for a retrial?

The protesters voiced their solidarity with the victim. They called for a change in the way trials are handled both here and in the north. They also criticised the reporting.

Here's some links about the protests.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/thousands-take-streets-ireland-ibelieveher-12275151

http://www.irishnews.com/news/northernirelandnews/2018/03/29/news/rugby-rape-trial-i-believe-her-rallies-planned-across-ireland-1290667/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5565141/Dublin-women-protest-clearing-international-rugby-players-accused-raping-teen.html

https://thedebrief.co.uk/news/real-life/belfast-rape-trial-i-believe-her/

There's a cross section of publications. None of them mention anyone trying to change the verdict.

FrancieBrady

Muahahaha wrote: »

I think posters on here who do not wish to see them play for Ireland again have been very measured in this discussion.

I was called a rapist on this thread. Just saying.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Here's what he said.



Show me the evidence that said the 'bed was covered in her blood'
Show me the evidence that showed she 'ran away in tears'
Show me the evidence that they 'joked about' the above the next day,

1. Photographs that were shown to the jury.
2. Rory Harrison
3. The WhatsApp messages.

They treated that girl like **** and they boasted about their conquest calling themselves top shaggers, legends and talking about spitroasting and other precious secrets about sluts getting f*cked.

All of these are facts, Francie. Show me the evidence that proves otherwise.

NAGDEFI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was called a rapist on this thread. Just saying.

That's not right Francie. None of arguing this evening have.

FrancieBrady

Muahahaha wrote: »

Not sure where you are reading that Francie, can you point it out? Because I am only referring to how they treated and spoke about that girl, I accept the juries verdict and always have.

It was consensual. How do you disrespect someone in that?

Group sex is not my thing, but I would never want to be in anyone's bedroom moralising about what they are doing.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I was called a rapist on this thread. Just saying.

Because you said it's ok to perform sex acts on sleeping people and that they can't withdraw consent until they wake up.

I admit I went too far in calling you a rapist and deleted my post a while after, so for that I apologise.

Doesn't take away from the fact that you feel the above is still ok.

It was in the previous thread, btw.

This is me holding my hands up and admitting I got something very wrong in what I said to you. Learn something from it and maybe you can accept that what these guys have done is completely unacceptable.

Grayson

Faugheen wrote: »

1. Photographs that were shown to the jury.
2. Rory Harrison
3. The WhatsApp messages.

They treated that girl like **** and they boasted about their conquest calling themselves top shaggers, legends and talking about spitroasting and other precious secrets about sluts getting f*cked.

All of these are facts, Francie. Show me the evidence that proves otherwise.

All of those facts are well known and were testified to in court. They have all been reported on.

Honestly at this point I have to think that Francie is either willfully ignoring facts or he's just trolling.

irishproduce

Only just learned your ones name this eve. A bit satisfying, only just to know all parties involved now

NAGDEFI

FrancieBrady wrote: »

It was consensual. How do you disrespect someone in that?

Group sex is not my thing, but I would never want to be in anyone's bedroom moralising about what they are doing.

They way they spoke about the act my good man isn't sitting well with a lot of people. Ordinary people, not moralists or prudes. Ordinary sensible, easy going people feel a line was crossed. You don't feel the language was overboard and i respect that. But you need to respect that the people who don't share your view are not some sort of mob of dogs with rabies.

Grayson

Faugheen wrote: »

Because you said it's ok to perform sex acts on sleeping people and that they can't withdraw consent until they wake up.

I admit I went too far in calling you a rapist and deleted my post a while after, so for that I apologise.

That behavior is very rapey though. If I woke up with someones cock inside me I'd consider it rape.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

1. Photographs that were shown to the jury.
2. Rory Harrison
3. The WhatsApp messages.

They treated that girl like **** and they boasted about their conquest calling themselves top shaggers, legends and talking about spitroasting and other precious secrets about sluts getting f*cked.

All of these are facts, Francie. Show me the evidence that proves otherwise.

I will highlight the sensational bits in case you are having difficulty.

Where does it say 'covered in her blood'

Where did Harrison say 'she ran away in tears'

Where are the Whasapp messages where they joke about 'covering the bed in her blood and her running away in tears'.

Grayson

irishproduce wrote: »

Only just learned your ones name this eve. A bit satisfying, only just to know all parties involved now

what the ****?

Mrsmum

mfceiling wrote: »

And many hadn't.
My father started his family at 23. Me at 30. My brother at 38. My neighbour at 18.

What's the point again? Oh yeah....something, something you are an adult at 21 and should have made all your mistakes by then.

At 22 and 24 you're a bit too hairy now to be acting like you still have all your growing up to do. By comparision she was 19.

Faugheen

Grayson wrote: »

That behavior is very rapey though. If I work up with someones cock inside me I'd consider it rape.

That's because it is. You can't consent while you are asleep.

NAGDEFI

Grayson wrote: »

All of those facts are well known and were testified to in court. They have all been reported on.

Honestly at this point I have to think that Francie is either willfully ignoring facts or he's just trolling.

I said this to Francie but i picture him as Mick the Bull Daly from the Savage Eye:D

'Shur all the lads were doing was a bit of rideeeeeen'!

tretorn

Faugheen wrote: »

1. Photographs that were shown to the jury.
2. Rory Harrison
3. The WhatsApp messages.

They treated that girl like **** and they boasted about their conquest calling themselves top shaggers, legends and talking about spitroasting and other precious secrets about sluts getting f*cked.

All of these are facts, Francie. Show me the evidence that proves otherwise.

Where are you getting your facts from, you werent in the house.

Dara Florence was and not only that but she testified that she saw three adults in a bed having fun, she laughed at the scene and told her friend she saw a threesome. She told the police the same story and she never wavered from that, she was asked to confirm her story in court under oath and she repeated it word for word.
Neither Jackson or Olding posted the text about sluts getting ****ed, for the nth time a friend of theirs texted this in a private whatsapp group. People are texting stuff like this as we speak but they wont get caught unless their phones end up being used as evidence.

Now, can we please stop with the making up of stuff to suit a vindictive moralistic viewpoint.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Because you said it's ok to perform sex acts on sleeping people and that they can't withdraw consent until they wake up.

I admit I went too far in calling you a rapist and deleted my post a while after, so for that I apologise.

Doesn't take away from the fact that you feel the above is still ok.

It was in the previous thread, btw.

This is me holding my hands up and admitting I got something very wrong in what I said to you. Learn something from it and maybe you can accept that what these guys have done is completely unacceptable.

Apology accepted.

A few young men joking about a drunken night of consensual sex is nothing to be proud of but does not warrant the very real punishment they and their families are getting.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

I will highlight the sensational bits in case you are having difficulty.

Where does it say 'covered in her blood'

Where did Harrison say 'she ran away in tears'

Where are the Whasapp messages where they joke about 'covering the bed in her blood and her running away in tears'.

So you're going on semantics now?

Her blood was on his sheets. Fact.

Harrison said in court that he saw she was upset at the top of the stairs. Fact.

Harrison told Blane McIlroy that she was in hysterics.

Whether they knew or not is actually irrelevant. They still treated a woman like **** and they boasted about treating said woman like ****.

Faugheen

tretorn wrote: »

Where are you getting your facts from, you werent in the house.

Dara Florence was and not only that but she testified that she saw three adults in a bed having fun, she laughed at the scene and told her friend she saw a threesome. She told the police the same story and she never wavered from that, she was asked to confirm her story in court under oath and she repeated it word for word.
Neither Jackson or Olding posted the text about sluts getting ****ed, for the nth time a friend of theirs texted this in a private whatsapp group. People are texting stuff like this as we speak but they wont get caught unless their phones end up being used as evidence.

Now, can we please stop with the making up of stuff to suit a vindictive moralistic viewpoint.

I'm getting my facts from the evidence and testimonies that were heard in court.

Do you think I just plucked them out of my hole or something?

tretorn

Faugheen wrote: »

So you're going on semantics now?

Her blood was on his sheets. Fact.

Harrison said in court that he saw she was upset at the top of the stairs. Fact.

Harrison told Blane McIlroy that she was in hysterics.

Whether they knew or not is actually irrelevant. They still treated a woman like **** and they boasted about treating said woman like ****.

Luckily the jury had access to all the evidence and they werent biased so based their facts on evidence and not on twitter snippets.

Thank God for the Rule Of law and the right to a fair trial.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

So you're going on semantics now?

Her blood was on his sheets. Fact.

Harrison said in court that he saw she was upset at the top of the stairs. Fact.

Harrison told Blane McIlroy that she was in hysterics.

Whether they knew or not is actually irrelevant. They still treated a woman like **** and they boasted about treating said woman like ****.

Semantics?

It was complete and utter sensationalist nonsense and you know it.

The jury clearly did not think she was in hysterics because she was raped. End of. Your opinion is of no relevance.

They boasted about having a good time. Not one of them boasted about treating anyone like ****.

Your or Grayson's moral indignation will not make it so.

CommandoJack

Looks like the IRFU have made their decision and will announce on Saturday. Not sure if that means Ulster's side of things is still ongoing or not.
More details in a thread on Leinsterfans.
Glad it's not going to be drawn out for many more weeks at least.

meeeeh

BBDBB wrote: »

hang on, "not entitled"??

The relationship of "adoration" of fans is a two way street

The player (of most professional sports) raises his or her arms aloft in triumph at some victory or other and the crowd cheers and applauds in response. (Tennis, Golf, Football, Rugby, GAA, etc etc. The more significant the moment the more the crowd applaud and cheer. The player raises their game at that expectation. Its symbiotic, they feed off each other

Its entirely an earned adulation, if the player doesnt perform, misses a chance, fails to prevent a score, the crowd let them know. This is true of every player in every sports team

If a sportsperson is on the field and makes a howling error the crowd are more than capable and willing to express their disappointment and dissatisfaction with boos and shouts. They do at every sporting venue wherever spectators gather


Let the public decide whether they are willing to let PJ and SO back into the Ulster and Ireland shirts by playing them and see if they are willing to pay to watch them


If gates are down it shows that people aren't comfortable with them representing their province or country. If the crowd are on their back regarding their off field behaviour they will let them know.

If you want your opportunity to shout your disapproval, then an Ulster game from the terraces is a perfect place for you to do so

What do you suggest? A fight to the bitter end and then see which sides come on top.

Anyway if they had any chance (and I don't think they did), a rape list in Cork school just put an end to it. The publicity would be completely damaging. Weather tgey like it or not tgey are the poster boys for attitude that needs to be challenged and eradicated.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm getting my facts from the evidence and testimonies that were heard in court.

Do you think I just plucked them out of my hole or something?

Yes, you did. As I pointed out.

But accurate and factual detail and the importance of it is 'semantics' now. :rolleyes:

Muahahaha

Faugheen wrote: »

Or you make an honest effort to spell out your point to them and they reply with:

'...but they were found not guilty.'

Everyone else has moved past the verdict except for Jackson and Oldings supporters.

Spot on. Even in the last thread the poll at the top had over 70% of people accepting the jury verdict (when the dont knows were removed). Which means the vast, vast majority of posters on here have accepted the verdict. But then on the other hand two polls show us 66% of the Irish public dont want them in an Irish jersey again. So it is a perfectly normal position to believe them to be not guility but also to believe them as not being worthy of playing for Ireland because of the way they treated that young girl and conducted themselves over the Whatsapp texts.

Which leads to the next refrain which was going on all last week "....but the Whatsapp messages were private....if people saw everyones whatapp texts we would all be guilty...."
eh no, for one what is seen cannot be unseen. But more importantly I havent ever talked about women in that manner, never have, never will. Ive certainly talked to mates about one night stands Ive had with women but I have never felt the urge to degrade them by calling them sluts. And I am tired of posters on here putting up a defence for Jackson and Olding on the Whatsapp that "sure we all do it". No, no we do not, only a small minority of boys who have yet to grow up go around calling women brassers, sluts whilst also asking each other "why are we all such legends".

Faugheen

tretorn wrote: »

Luckily the jury had access to all the evidence and they werent biased so based their facts on evidence and not on twitter snippets.

Thank God for the Rule Of law and the right to a fair trial.

What has this got to do with the verdict?

I've said to you and everyone else umpteen times that their verdict is the right one based on the evidence and reasonable doubt.

However, it does not mean that there was no blood of hers on his bed, that Rory Harrison didn't say she was upset, or that they didn't boast about being top shaggers and precious secrets.

Everything I have said was presented as evidence. A 'not guilty' verdict doesn't mean the evidence suddenly no longer exists when it comes to analysing their behaviour that night.

Jesus Christ it's actually f*cking painful having to spell it out to everyone.

I made a point that people just go back to the verdict as a way of shutting the conversation down.

We're not talking about the verdict anymore. We're talking about their behaviour of which Paddy Jackson said the reaction to was 'fully justified'.

tretorn

Faugheen wrote: »

I'm getting my facts from the evidence and testimonies that were heard in court.

Do you think I just plucked them out of my hole or something?

You are getting your "facts" from the testimony of a witness who the jury didnt believe, her evidence didnt stack up and you cant jail people unless their guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.

If we didnt have a court of law anyone can make up wild allegations and then its he said, she said.

Luckily for PJ and Olding there was an independent witness who was prepared to say what she saw.

I feel very sorry for Dara F, she went out for a nights fun, didnt abuse alcohol and didnt head off to anyones bedroom. She didnt even know the woman who made the allegation and now her life has been completely upset by a mess someone else created. She has been very dignified and she doesnt deserve the abuse being heaped on her, she did her civic duty and told the truth, we need more fine young women like Dara Florence.

It should have been Dara Florence who got the praise from the PPS after the court case.

NAGDEFI

Once you post on this topic it's very difficult to get off..dare i say a 'merry go round'.

NAGDEFI

tretorn wrote: »

You are getting your "facts" from the testimony of a witness who the jury didnt believe, her evidence didnt stack up and you cant jail people unless their guilt is established beyond reasonable doubt.

If we didnt have a court of law anyone can make up wild allegations and then its he said, she said.

Luckily for PJ and Olding there was an independent witness who was prepared to say what she saw.

I feel very sorry for Dara F, she went out for a nights fun, didnt abuse alcohol and didnt head off to anyones bedroom. She didnt even know the woman who made the allegation and now her life has been completely upset by a mess someone else created. She has been very dignified and she doesnt deserve the abuse being heaped on her, she did her civic duty and told the truth, we need more fine young women like Dara Florence.

It should have been Dara Florence who got the praise from the PPS after the court case.

A real modern day Florence Nightingale:D