Belfast rape trial discussion thread II

jesus christ above

have none of ye anything for doing at all

upandcumming

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.

Both sides of the discussion have performed poorly and there has been alot of posts way off the mark, but neither side have been 'measured'. Just take a look at the first thread on this topic.

While I am firmly in the 'Jacksons and Oldings supporters' camp, I feel that there is an overreaction to the messages. That is not to say I do not think they are disrespectful, they are disrespectful. Just because I don't agree with you or the posters on the other side of the discussion, does not mean I cannot or don't want to see the problems with the messages.

Posts like this really doesn't do anything to reinforce your 'measured' description.

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

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'.

Not the 'reaction' based on downright sensationalist lies.

You were going to show us back up for what Grayson said? Whenever you find it in the testimony and evidence, post it up.

Particularly interested in the Whasapp messages where they 'joked' about the bed 'covered in her blood' and her 'running away crying'.

Because all I seen were messages about a night of fun and baosting about sexual prowess.

tretorn

NAGDEFI wrote: »

A real modern day Florence Nightingale:D

Dara didnt get to keep her anonymity or get to give evidence behind a screen either.

As I said a very brave woman, her parents must be very proud of her.

BBDBB

Mrsmum wrote: »

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",

Thankyou for playing the post rather than the poster.
As a way to express my thoughts Im choosing to use the first party vernacular on occasion

For me, they have already paid a heavy price for the crime which has now boiled down to a very disrespectful attitude towards the girl in question played mainly in texts now given the Not guilty verdict

That price so far has been
Suspension - lets not gloss over that with a word. That means you get up every morning and live the life of a sportsman (your dream job) with the sacrifices of diet and training regimen but without the comradeship of team mates and without the satisfaction of a match to play at the weekend

Relationships - it may sound a cliche, but think of how you deal with that in your own head, the disappointment in yourself and your parents who have sacrificed so much for your career. Could you look at your dad and mum in the eye again? Maybe its just me, but living with the shame I would feel at their disapproval would be a horrible way to exist

Its also significant enough to be a significant detriment to many future relationships I may have

Family- outside of whatever Im going through as a "potential rapist" I cant imagine what anguish my parents and siblings are going through for the initial accusation, preparation for trial, duration of trial and now the aftermath. I cant speak for anyone else, but it would kill my mother and my father would never speak to me again I predict. Maybe the parents of these four are more forgiving and maybe Im doing the unconditional love my parents have for me a disservice. But that just makes the anguish Im putting them through even worse

Future - a future thats uncertain, always stressful, particularly when I have no influence over it. Everyone I meet, new team mates at a new club, new supporters, coaches, club owners, opposition teams and their supporters will now be viewing me differently. Maybe they'll vocalise it or maybe its just the doubt in my head

With all that as punishment so far my view is that they have been punnished more than enough for some disrespectful messages and behaviour.

I think to satisfy demands of those who demand even more is that the horror of the above needs to be communicated again and again. Its all very well shouting and demanding blood, but there has to come a time when enough is enough. You cant punish these players for ever. There has to be a reasonable solution, a point where you say ok, the 'punishment' now fits the 'crime'

Id encapsulate teh two years endured as time already served...and more. For a Not Guilty verdict that took less than 4 hours? Lets put the placards down for a moment and be reasonable.
5 lives have been disrupted? No, many many more lives have been put on hold and turned upside down by these events. Id be astonished if the lessons needs to be repeated in the future to these individuals. Theres more than enough blood on the walls (metaphorically), why continue to hammer people into the ground, ruining careers, ruining lives. Its all got a bit vindictive for my taste.

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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.

Who mentioned the word 'rape'?

Their behaviour left her upset, which is acknowledged by three of the four defendants. This. Is. Fact.

Again you're going back to the jury. I'm not talking about the verdict. I'm talking about he facts presented to this case which raise arguments over whether these two should be allowed play for Ireland again.

Her state leaving that house is undeniable whether you think a rape happened or not.

NAGDEFI

upandcumming wrote: »

Both sides of the discussion have performed poorly and there has been alot of posts way off the mark, but neither side have been 'measured'. Just take a look at the first thread on this topic.

While I am firmly in the 'Jacksons and Oldings supporters' camp, I feel that there is an overreaction to the messages. That is not to say I do not think they are disrespectful, they are disrespectful. Just because I don't agree with you or the posters on the other side of the discussion, does not mean I cannot or don't want to see the problems with the messages.

Posts like this really doesn't do anything to reinforce your 'measured' description.

Who appointed you as adjudicator of the debate tonight?!!

NAGDEFI

upandcumming wrote: »

Both sides of the discussion have performed poorly and there has been alot of posts way off the mark, but neither side have been 'measured'. Just take a look at the first thread on this topic.

While I am firmly in the 'Jacksons and Oldings supporters' camp, I feel that there is an overreaction to the messages. That is not to say I do not think they are disrespectful, they are disrespectful. Just because I don't agree with you or the posters on the other side of the discussion, does not mean I cannot or don't want to see the problems with the messages.

Posts like this really doesn't do anything to reinforce your 'measured' description.

I find it hard to take a lecture on debating from a lad called 'upandcumming':D

upandcumming

Faugheen wrote: »

Who mentioned the word 'rape'?

Their behaviour left her upset, which is acknowledged by three of the four defendants. This. Is. Fact.

Her state leaving that house is undeniable whether you think a rape happened or not.

It is undeniable. But didn't Jackson and Olding not find this out until way after the messages, that they didn't actually send?

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

Who mentioned the word 'rape'?

Their behaviour left her upset, which is acknowledged by three of the four defendants. This. Is. Fact.

Again you're going back to the jury. I'm not talking about the verdict. I'm talking about he facts presented to this case which raise arguments over whether these two should be allowed play for Ireland again.

Her state leaving that house is undeniable whether you think a rape happened or not.

And nobody ever left a drunken party upset? :rolleyes:

We have nothing that proves why she was upset. She said it was because she was raped.
She didn't convince the jury of that.

NAGDEFI

tretorn wrote: »

Dara didnt get to keep her anonymity or get to give evidence behind a screen either.

As I said a very brave woman, her parents must be very proud of her.

If she told the truth she's a brave woman. And i have no reason to doubt her.

NAGDEFI

Wrongway1985 wrote: »

The definition of teenager is literally a person between 13-19 despite what a young cluainmhuire thought

Maybe he was in Cluainmhuire that year:D

Faugheen

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.

Hold on a second there horse.

I'm getting the blood from the photographs of Jackson's bed that were shown to the jury (the ones that were airbrushed).

I'm getting the fact that she was upset from the acknowledgements of 3 of the 4 defendants (one of which said so in open court).

I'm getting the boasting of their legendary night from WhatsApp messages which were also revealed in court.

Tell me, where have I mentioned the complainant? And where have I insinuated that the jury got the verdict wrong?

Stop ignoring these points and debate like an adult, because you constantly blithering on about the same point while refusing to answer mine is just tiresome at this stage.

upandcumming

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Who appointed you as adjudicator of the debate tonight?!!

I'm not much of an adjudicator as I support a particular side.

NAGDEFI wrote: »

I find it hard to take a lecture on debating from a lad called 'upandcumming':D

No lecture, simply a response to that poster's commentary on the debate. I also gave my thoughts on the messages and the reaction to them.

Play the ball, not the man! :D

BBDBB

meeeeh wrote: »

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.

no

since you ask
I suggest you re-read the post and digest it and the post it was replying to before responding



Id also suggest you go back to post number 168 of this thread - Id accept the adoration of the crowd for a successful prediction but Im 6 hours late :rolleyes:

Faugheen

FrancieBrady wrote: »

And nobody ever left a drunken party upset? :rolleyes:

We have nothing that proves why she was upset. She said it was because she was raped.
She didn't convince the jury of that.

It doesn't matter why she was upset.

Guilty or not guilty. We have it on record from three of the four defendants that it's accepted she was upset. Even if the encounter was consensual, she was still treated like **** and was upset by how the night panned out.

What more do you f*cking want?

NAGDEFI

There's talk of a film being made next year.

A few working titles but 2 on the shortlist.

'What We Did Last Summer' or 'Who We Did Last Summer'.

Ulster Rugby are thinking of making a documentary 'Who We Are Is How We Play- No Wonder We Win Nothing'.

NAGDEFI

upandcumming wrote: »

I'm not much of an adjudicator as I support a particular side.



No lecture, simply a response to that poster's commentary on the debate. I also gave my thoughts on the messages and the reaction to them.

Play the ball, not the man! :D

In fairness it's hard not to play the man in this instance! Ah fair enough upandcumming i think tonight you truly have arrived:D:D

FrancieBrady

Faugheen wrote: »

It doesn't matter why she was upset.

Guilty or not guilty. We have it on record from three of the four defendants that it's accepted she was upset. Even if the encounter was consensual, she was still treated like **** and was upset by how the night panned out.

What more do you f*cking want?

I want you to admit that Grayson was being a sensationalist dangerous fool with the facts for a start.

She was upset, many people are leaving drunken parties and it does not necessarily mean because she was treated like ****.

BBDBB

Faugheen wrote: »

It doesn't matter why she was upset.

Guilty or not guilty. We have it on record from three of the four defendants that it's accepted she was upset. Even if the encounter was consensual, she was still treated like **** and was upset by how the night panned out.

What more do you f*cking want?

you ever been the sober one at the party? Designated driver perhaps? watched the behaviour around you and despaired?

People are complete arseholes when they are drunk, men and women

it really doesnt take much (or anything in some cases) for someone to be upset when they've been drinking

Muahahaha

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Well I dont agree with that and the poster shouldnt have said it and Im glad you got an apology and have moved on. However Francie you havent helped yourself here either by labelling those of us who do not agree with your position as the mob, feminazis, twitterati, etc. I enjoy your postings on other topics and I know you are a passionate kind of fella but pigeon holing and throwing labels about really doesnt add anything to the debate.

FrancieBrady wrote: »

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

Im not speaking of consent at all, I dont think anyone is here more than two weeks after the verdict, that debate has long since passed. It is their whatapp texts that is what makes me feel these two players are not becoming of the Irish jersey.

CommandoJack wrote: »

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.

Very interesting news, the fact the IRFU have done their review so quickly would not bode well for Jackson and Olding. If the IRFU were thinking of rehabilitation then I would have expected the review to take 6-8 weeks. I wonder what the IRFUs out could be though, probably just pay the two of them the remainder of their contracts and release them immediately? Better for all concerned IMO, it draws a quick line underneath the whole sorry episode and Irish rugby can just move on without any distractions from an inevitable media circus should they return.

tretorn

The woman posted derogatory texts too, three ****ing rugby scum isnt exactly ladylike language either.

If the men arent gentlemen because of the texts they sent was does the womans texts say about her.

meeeeh

BBDBB wrote: »

no

since you ask
I suggest you re-read the post and digest it and the post it was replying to before responding



Id also suggest you go back to post number 168 of this thread - Id accept the adoration of the crowd for a successful prediction but Im 6 hours late :rolleyes:

You really think I will go searching back through the thread. You don't understand one small thing, sports career at the top level is not entitlement. I have no doubt they suffered but not letting them play is not punishment is just a fact of life. If a product is damaged and there is more hassle to repair it than get a new one, you throw it away. They are toxic, why would you bring them back in?

NAGDEFI

Another working title for the Paddy Jackson blockbuster, the Jackson 'Thriller' so to speak.

'Johnny's Got Us Covered'

BBDBB

meeeeh wrote: »

You really think I will go searching back through the thread. You don't understand one small thing, sports career at the top level is not entitlement. I have no doubt they suffered but not letting them play is not punishment is just a fact of life. If a product is damaged and there is more hassle to repair it than get a new one, you throw it away. They are toxic, why would you bring them back in?

you really ought to

I was the one arguing against a sports career as "entitlement"

FrancieBrady

Muahahaha wrote: »

Well I dont agree with that and the poster shouldnt have said it and Im glad you got an apology and have moved on. However Francie you havent helped yourself here either by labelling those of us who do not agree with your position as the mob, feminazis, twitterati, etc. I enjoy your postings on other topics and I know you are a passionate kind of fella but pigeon holing and throwing labels about really doesnt add anything to the debate.

A 'mob' took to the streets with the expressed intention of trying to undermine the verdict. #ibelieveher on Twitter and FB organised the fecking thing.

Im not speaking of consent at all, I dont think anyone is here more than two weeks after the verdict, that debate has long since passed. It is their whatapp texts that is what makes me feel these two players are not becoming of the Irish jersey.

I am still waiting for someone to tell me what is acceptable slang for a sexually promiscuous woman.
As I said, my feelings about one woman does not for a minute mean I feel that way about all women and as I said they didn't seem to mind being in the company of sexually promiscuous young women. So where they even being derogatory?

givyjoe

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Another working title for the Paddy Jackson blockbuster, the Jackson 'Thriller' so to speak.

'Johnny's Got Us Covered'

What in the fc.uk are you in about? Any chance you can stick all your sh1t movie titles in one post and be done with it?!

NAGDEFI

tretorn wrote: »

The woman posted derogatory texts too, three ****ing rugby scum isnt exactly ladylike language either.

If the men arent gentlemen because of the texts they sent was does the womans texts say about her.

Ban her from playing rugby for 6 mts.

What would she say? I just got raped there, jaysus they were lovely lads, salt of the earth..

NAGDEFI

givyjoe wrote: »

What in the fc.uk are you in about? Any chance you can stick all your sh1t movie titles in one post and be done with it?!

Ah Joe you've hurt my feelings..

By the way you spelt 'on' wrongly, it's not spelt 'in'. See when you get thick you can't spell 2 letter words:D:D

'What in the fcuk are you in about'? What part of the country do you come from Joe?

givyjoe

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Ah Joe you've hurt my feelings..

By the way you spelt 'on' wrongly, it's not spelt 'in'. See when you get thick you can't spell 2 letter words:D:D

Oh i see you edited your post Joe. Aren't you clever!

Can you please just imagine me inserting the rolleyes emoji.. on the mobile here. I haven't edited anything.

Your comedy act needs some serious work.

BBDBB

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A 'mob' took to the streets with the expressed intention of trying to undermine the verdict. #ibelieveher on Twitter and FB organised the fecking thing.




I am still waiting for someone to tell me what is acceptable slang for a sexually promiscuous woman.
As I said, my feelings about one woman does not for a minute mean I feel that way about all women and as I said they didn't seem to mind being in the company of sexually promiscuous young women. So where they even being derogatory?

Can I appeal to the mods for special dispensation to use the "Yor Ma!" line in response??

ah g'wan

g'wan

g'wan

G'wan!

JP Liz V1

irishproduce wrote: »

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

The victim's name?

NAGDEFI

givyjoe wrote: »

What in the fc.uk are you in about? Any chance you can stick all your sh1t movie titles in one post and be done with it?!

Give ut ip for Joe he's un the house and rocking the threed with hos spilling! Up Joe! Sorry Ut Joe!

NAGDEFI

givyjoe wrote: »

Can you please just imagine me inserting the rolleyes emoji.. on the mobile here. I haven't edited anything.

Your comedy act needs some serious work.

What sort of phone do you have Joe? Is the spelling on Turkyish?:D

Mrsmum

FrancieBrady wrote: »

A 'mob' took to the streets with the expressed intention of trying to undermine the verdict. #ibelieveher on Twitter and FB organised the fecking thing.




I am still waiting for someone to tell me what is acceptable slang for a sexually promiscuous woman.
As I said, my feelings about one woman does not for a minute mean I feel that way about all women and as I said they didn't seem to mind being in the company of sexually promiscuous young women. So where they even being derogatory?

Maybe they could call themselves sluts and her a legend.

NAGDEFI

On a serious note history is a funny thing.

In July 1916 thousands of Ulster boys from 15 years up were sacrificing themselves on the Somme.

In July 2016, i don't have to fill in the blanks.

We really don't know how good we have it. And it won't always be like this if history teaches us anything.

Roger Hassenforder

Mrsmum wrote: »

Oh believe me it doesn't but I still don't see that you are giving any advice to junior on how his 'fun night out' could find him ending up in court as the defendant. Is that not a consideration at all ?

That "duty of care" bit would cover it.
Its a massive consideration.
As much as i dont want my girls raped, i dont want him to rape some other dad's little girl.

givyjoe

NAGDEFI wrote: »

What sort of phone do you have Joe? Is the spelling on Turkyish?:D

Do you have an actual point to make?! I mean are you drunk that you've felt the need to make what, 4 posts, because of one incorrectly spelled word?!

Mad ted.

NAGDEFI

givyjoe wrote: »

Do you have an actual point to make?! I mean are you drunk that you've felt the need to make what, 4 posts, because of one incorrectly spelled word?!

Mad ted.

Messing Joe. Being silly. Apologies.

I actually think i've been on the thread too long this evening and basically went a bit silly.

Again apologies, and nothing personal at all.

givyjoe

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Messing Joe. Being silly. Apologies.

I actually think i've been on the thread too long this evening and basically went a bit silly.

Again apologies, and nothing personal at all.

I'm merely mildly irritated by the sh1t puns! Not offended.

NAGDEFI

givyjoe wrote: »

I'm merely mildly irritated by the sh1t puns! Not offended.

I put a lot of work into those:D

NAGDEFI

mfceiling wrote: »

When they were younger? They are 25 and 26 FFS.

Who has them on pedestals?

Yes if they were thought some morals when they were younger it would help future behaviour. FFS your posts are so dim! You can't even make the connection with how the lessons taught in youth apply later in life.

I love the way you're following every post of mine. A bit shaken, are we by the cut and thrust of debate?

jimmycrackcorm

Faugheen wrote:

I'm getting the blood from the photographs of Jackson's bed that were shown to the jury (the ones that were airbrushed).

FrancieBrady wrote:

Particularly interested in the Whasapp messages where they 'joked' about the bed 'covered in her blood' and her 'running away crying'.

Faugheen wrote:

Her blood was on his sheets. Fact.

The sheet blood was excluded from the evidence because it wasn't hers.

RabbleRouser2k

Been reading through few posts here, just want to add my two cents.

As for Bill Clinton-you can say 'he got away with it'...but did he really? He lied under oath in front of a committee. There were allegations of worse made against him (rape and assault), and it's never been forgotten-barring current feminists and people who were all 'Hillary for President'. Much of the reason it was never forgotten was the internet had made it's way to most people's homes, so there was constant coverage. It wasn't just TV now.
People tried to say Trump was the worse candidate, because of what he said. But Bill lied before a committee.
And Hillary made awful comments about the women accusing him of horrific things, and aggravated rape survivors.

By the time Hillary went for President-the Clinton brand was toxic, with way too much mud attached. She was so bad, it made it easy for Trump.

Mel Gibson-yeah, not convicted for anti-semetic comments, or the 'raped by a pack of n*****s' tape. Was convicted for beating up his ex. Plead no contest. And yet has a career, was oscar nommed for his last movie...yeah, hollywood is a sick place. Metoo is just a bandaid on a festering wound.

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.

I never understood that mentality-I know you were pointing it out as hypocrisy, and rightly so-but I never got it. I feel like saying 'right, you're grown up now-no more dumb mistakes' is foolish. Be dumb, but don't hurt people. (Not referencing the case, just a life goal).

(I also know people who were married at 20, kids at 22. Makes me grateful I chose to never have kids-tho I might change my mind. Someone I know was sure and certain him and the wife would never have children. Then she had a healthy baby boy at 43-everyone was happy for them, cos they are genuinely nice people).

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.

A tad unfair. I mean most of us learned treat people with respect from being kids-it's the first thing you learn. Not referencing Jackson and co-just referencing things in general. But many people...they have to take time to learn that. They have to make mistakes, figure things out...there's far too much 'keeping up with the joneses'. We're not all the same. I would think the language used by them was something a teenager would use, even at 17 or 18 you'd be calling em idiots.

The recent revelations about the blood on the sheets has added to questions now-Jackson has stated he would not explain where the blood came from (not required to, since it wasn't his or the complainant) but it threw up more questions. Like who's it did belong to, and how did it get there. (Best case scenario-dog or cat got a cut or some other injury, Girlfriend stayed over during time of the month. Worst case scenario-similar incident happened before which paints Jackson in a darker light).

Tbh, the 'rape list' in Cork is not related to the situation in the North-but it's going to weigh on sponsor's minds (you can argue it's unfair-but life's unfair. Even if it wouldn't surprise me it was a stunt).
This will further add to the headache that sponsors will have-having to look at that and say 'oh no, these guys have to become an example'-unfortunately, sports people are meant to be role models. If this behaviour is seen in a positive light-it's going to cause problems in sport.

Look at that Irish boxer who was sent home from the Olympics in shame because he used a banned substance. He harmed nobody but himself, but has been shamed since, and banned from the sport.
You can say 'ah,people make mistakes' but unfortunately, when you represent your country, you're wearing your country-if you screw up, it looks bad on everyone. Yes, they were not found guilty, but the recent lifting of the ban on reporting threw out more questions-with too many non-answers.

flatty

Muahahaha wrote: »

Je suis le Mob :cool:

66% of the Irish public dont want them in an Irish jersey again. Let the Ulster lads have them back if they can handle lowering the standards of their club that much that they take the self proclaimed "legends" back. Luckily for the rest of us Joe Schmidt is one of the most intelligent rugby managers in the world and will not be having them within an asses roar of another Irish cap. The Irish public wouldnt stand for it, Joe knows it, the IRFU know it and the sponsors know it.

Joe schmidt was perfectly happy having other players back who had picked up a drunk lady, and "spit roasted" her, apparently whilst one of their pals was trying to record it.
The hypocrisy and moralising on this thread, and in irish society in general, is staggering. Its no wonder we ended up with the magdalene laundries.

RabbleRouser2k

flatty wrote: »

Joe schmidt was perfectly happy having other players back who had picked up a drunk lady, and "spit roasted" her, apparently whilst one of their pals was trying to record it.
The hypocrisy and moralising on this thread, and in irish society in general, is staggering. Its no wonder we ended up with the magdalene laundries.

Did he support them though? He never made any comment on this, and what happened with those guys did not result in a court case. That's the difference-those two didn't end up in court accused of a crime. Despite the acquittal, too many questions have emerged since then-and the Whatsapp messages amongst other things left many people with questions.

How you can compare the Magdalene Laundries to a court case I find bizarre. In fact, in 'ye olden days' it was the girl at the center of the case who would have ended up in the Laundries-not the two guys.

In fact, many rape victims (not that I'm alleging the woman at the center of the case was or was not raped) would have been sent there-as they were seen to be 'leading the men on'.

Men had their own problems-but 'Magdalene Laundries', for the most part, wasn't one of them.

facehugger99

flatty wrote: »

Its no wonder we ended up with the magdalene laundries.

And the prize for non sequitur of the day goes to......

mfceiling

NAGDEFI wrote: »

Yes if they were thought some morals when they were younger it would help future behaviour. FFS your posts are so dim! You can't even make the connection with how the lessons taught in youth apply later in life.

I love the way you're following every post of mine. A bit shaken, are we by the cut and thrust of debate?

You're some sad case. My posts are dim? Compared to your "witty" movie titles?
Staying up until after 1 in the morning posting on boards. Sorry I had to go to bed because I have work today.
Shaken by the cut and thrust of debate? Didn't realise you were Jeremy Paxman.

Homer

Roger Hassenforder wrote: »

That "duty of care" bit would cover it.
Its a massive consideration.
As much as i dont want my girls raped, i dont want him to rape some other dad's little girl.

Isn’t that what they say about having kids. Have a boy and you have one mickey to worry about.. have a girl and you have to worry about every mickey in the world :pac:


*just adding some lighthearted banter to an overheated thread*

tritium

NAGDEFI wrote: »

As Muhaha says when you think of men.. you think of Rory Best, O'Connell, O'Driscoll, Sexton etc.

Eventually most men settle down with a partner/wife like Cronin, Earls, Sexton, Best.

These boys eventually need to grow up have families, provide leadership. I don't think it's feasible to be having 3 somes with your best mate for the rest of your life. Unless we want a generation of Peter Pan's exaggerating they're sex lives and literally not being able to do anything without the best mate beside you.

Grow a pair chaps and stand on your own two feet.

Rory best? As in #notmycaptain Rory best?

I thought he was the devil incarnate still?

Clearly I didn’t get the memo......