Can we talk about Cristiano Ronaldo?

snowblind

snowblind wrote: »

This will likely cause a ton of death threats for her and nothing much for him. This is exactly why women are afraid of reporting. 500K is nothing considering the amount of legal help she will need.

As a Juve fan it was already clear to me when he joined that CR7 is a (veeeeeery likely) rapist and it's sickening to even look at him now tbf.

snowblind

gimli2112 wrote: »

we're getting to the stage that any celebrity having sex needs to videotape it and save it to the cloud.

I don't know about this one though, I want it not to be true

Or just ask for consent before engaging in sexual activities. Might sound wild to you but hey, I'm glad to educate.

snowblind

RoboKlopp wrote: »

Original Spiegel article came out years ago. Hush money, Ronaldo's signature on the secret papers etc.

Pretty sure she was encouraged by the #metoo movement to take it out on the open. Very brave of her!

Kirby

Deleted User wrote: »

I would say more than disappointing. He should be sacked and prosecuted and face a lengthy time in jail.

If it's true.

Rape is not disappointing. It's a brutal crime that should always result in a jail sentence. But you are correct about the watch and wait, he is entitled to a presumption of innocence and all we can do is see how it evolves.

I find this comment rather interesting considering your outright bizarre obsessive condemnation on this board of another footballer accused of rape and eventually found innocent. Are you only saying this because it's Ronaldo? Do footballers only deserve the presumption of innocence if they played for your team?

Personally, having read the details surrounding this it appears open and shut to me. He's admitted to raping her already. In Ronaldo's own words she repeatedly told him No....and he also states he apologized to her.

Obviously, an official investigation should reveal more and we shouldn't condemn him before all facts are known but it looks terrible at this point.

Kirby

Kirby wrote: »

I find this comment rather interesting considering your outright bizarre obsessive condemnation on this board of another footballer accused of rape and eventually found innocent. Are you only saying this because it's Ronaldo? Do footballers only deserve the presumption of innocence if they played for your team?

Personally, having read the details surrounding this it appears open and shut to me. He's admitted to raping her already. In Ronaldo's own words she repeatedly told him No....and he also states he apologized to her.

Obviously, an official investigation should reveal more and we shouldn't condemn him before all facts are known but it looks terrible at this point.

Ummmmmmm, the other footballer was found guilty by a jury.

It was only when he produced new (ie. unknown to you or me or the original jury) evidence that the decision was reversed. Everyone was entitled to rely on the verdict.

Here, there has been no verdict. That's why he's entitled to the presumption.

It's hardly complex legalistic stuff. And it doesn't depend on which team he plays for.

snowblind

He's entitled to that presumption in the court of law

As people, we are still allowed to make conclusions. Mine is that this lad is guilty and I hate him and I'd rather not see his face ever again.

Kirby

While I agree with the sentiment, you might want to edit that. Some United fans round here will be reporting that as abuse.

snowblind

As a statement of opinion, not a fact, it should pass moderatorship imho (edit: nope!)

Haven't been following the EPL threads here. Pretty funny that ManU fans still think of him as their own! (edit: lol indeed!)

CSF

snowblind wrote: »

He's entitled to that presumption in the court of law

As people, we are still allowed to make conclusions. Mine is that this lad is a terrible prick and I'd rather not see his face ever again.

It definitely looks bad, but I'd be inclined to wait until those quotes are verified before forming a strong opinion. They don't sound like what you'd expect a really rich guy with a really strong legal team to say when trying to explain why they're not a rapist. You'd imagine he'd be 3 or 4 words into that statement and his legal team would have put an end to that.


If that statement gets verified as being from his mouth, then it is an open and shut case really.

snowblind

snowblind wrote: »

He's entitled to that presumption in the court of law

As people, we are still allowed to make conclusions. Mine is that this lad is guilty and I hate him and I'd rather not see his face ever again.

There was an other accusation of rape also during the time he was at Manchester.

Read his statements. He admitted it. I really would love to know where all the outrage is.

Guy:Incognito

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Read his statements. He admitted it. I really would love to know where all the outrage is.

There seems to be very little outrage about these things in general.

There's a rapist playing in the loi and no one seems to care.

Guy:Incognito

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

There seems to be very little outrage about these things in general.

There's a rapist playing in the loi and no one seems to care.

There's plenty of outrage when it's certain people. The LOI one really gets to me when there were women protesting about the Paddy Jackson case outside courthouses but a convicted one tours the country and nothing is said. In Ronaldo's case it's a world-famous sportsman and celebrity and I don't get where the #metoo and #ibelieveher crowd are.

EDIT: Also anyone who uses "Fake news" in earnest is to be instantly disbelieved.

unplayable

im a huge ronaldo fan and im appalled by this. i hope he goes down and does time for this. disgraceful stuff and the instagram video was embarrassing. how someone could do this is beyond me.

MD1990

I thought Ronaldo's denial in the instagram video was weak.

If it was false you would think he would be issuing a statement completly denying the allegations or that money was paid.

GavRedKing

I'm surprised the SJW crowd havent picked up on this more.

I suppose its not as out there in the main stream media as some of the other high profile sexual assault cases.

Any of the Twitter pages, BBC and a few Sports accounts I follow, the CR7 fanboys are defending him to the last.

GavRedKing

GavRedKing wrote: »

I'm surprised the SJW crowd havent picked up on this more.

I suppose its not as out there in the main stream media as some of the other high profile sexual assault cases.

Any of the Twitter pages, BBC and a few Sports accounts I follow, the CR7 fanboys are defending him to the last.

I can only guess that it's because it seems like an open and shut case. Not much room for discord and split opinions or big points to be made or scored.

snowblind

GavRedKing wrote: »

I'm surprised the SJW crowd havent picked up on this more.

I suppose its not as out there in the main stream media as some of the other high profile sexual assault cases.

Any of the Twitter pages, BBC and a few Sports accounts I follow, the CR7 fanboys are defending him to the last.

SJW is a derogative term used to ridicule people who care about social justice but ok

I'd say there are two things in play here

• Many of 'us' don't follow sports or only tune in during world cup (and unlikely to do so because toxic masculinity is symptomatic to sports
• There is definitely fatigue from dealing with public arguments about abuse and countering all these "SJW", "virtue signalling" etc anti-empathy/equality arguments.

And yeah I'm no warrior but I have fairly normative ideas of what is fair, and when I support a team I demand more from them than other teams.

GavRedKing

snowblind wrote: »

SJW is a derogative term used to ridicule people who care about social justice but ok

I'd say there are two things in play here

• Many of 'us' don't follow sports or only tune in during world cup (and unlikely to do so because toxic masculinity is symptomatic to sports
• There is definitely fatigue from dealing with public arguments about abuse and countering all these "SJW", "virtue signalling" etc anti-empathy/equality arguments.

And yeah I'm no warrior but I have fairly normative ideas of what is fair, and when I support a team I demand more from them than other teams.

I've no issue with the "SJW" crowd, each to their own and whatever issue someone wants to support or back is up to them.

My point was more, I'm surprised there has been more made of this on social media in Ronaldos case. Looking at Weinstein, Trump, Cosby, Kavanaugh, Ulster Rugby players, just to name the most recent high profile claims, all of those guys were tried and found guilty in the trial by Social Media.

I'm just shocked its not blown up more over Ronaldo whos arguably the biggest name in sport and one of the most recognisable people on the planet and that it snot all over the media.

FWIW, I've read the Der Speigel article and the evidence and testimony are pretty damning.

snowblind

GavRedKing wrote: »

I've no issue with the "SJW" crowd, each to their own and whatever issue someone wants to support or back is up to them.

My point was more, I'm surprised there has been more made of this on social media in Ronaldos case. Looking at Weinstein, Trump, Cosby, Kavanaugh, Ulster Rugby players, just to name the most recent high profile claims, all of those guys were tried and found guilty in the trial by Social Media.

I'm just shocked its not blown up more over Ronaldo whos arguably the biggest name in sport and one of the most recognisable people on the planet and that it snot all over the media.

FWIW, I've read the Der Speigel article and the evidence and testimony are pretty damning.

found guilty in the trial by Social Media

Oh please. Such over dramatic words. People have always discussed topics of the day, no need to be so hurt by it (and why on earth?).

I agree & wish that people would talk about this more but I'm sure they will and I hope they will. Not because any football reasons but because of you know, justice for the victim. But I also think the reasons I gave are pretty valid here.

GavRedKing

snowblind wrote: »

Oh please. Such over dramatic words. People have always discussed topics of the day, no need to be so hurt by it (and why on earth?).

I agree & wish that people would talk about this more but I'm sure they will and I hope they will. Not because any football reasons but because of you know, justice for the victim. But I also think the reasons I gave are pretty valid here.

I'm not arguing with you. I hope she gets justice because IMO, the evidence Der Speigel has collected and reported on, is leaning in her favour and painting a sickening description of Ronaldo as a person.

wadacrack

The evidence looks stacked against Ronaldo. Its really shocking stuff . This will probably become much ore serious as the weeks progress.

snowblind

snowblind wrote: »

He's entitled to that presumption in the court of law

As people, we are still allowed to make conclusions. Mine is that this lad is guilty and I hate him and I'd rather not see his face ever again.

your conclusion will be weighted appropriately for most ppl reading it i imagine

correction

I'd be very surprised if this story didn't grow and grow. It hasn't been latched onto yet but the longer it hangs there (and based on that we know so far it'll be hanging for a while yet) someone/something will grab a hold of it and people will latch on after.

It's absolutely horrible that anyone would commit such an awful crime and I always felt Ronaldo was a pretty decent role model too.

Deise Vu

wadacrack wrote: »

The evidence looks stacked against Ronaldo. Its really shocking stuff . This will probably become much ore serious as the weeks progress.

Any correspondence between Ronaldo and his legal people is not admissible as evidence. Therefore his damning admissions in the questionnaire are invalid. It would come down to the issue of consent which is always problematic.
There is also the issue that the lady made a complaint and then dropped it after receiving a sum of money. Then she reactivated the complaint when she got a new more “savvy”, lawyer who has served a suspension of his license for tax fraud.

Without her testimony, there is no case to answer.
More money will change hands and we won’t hear anything further about this sordid episode. It will severely damage the CR7 brand if it drags out too long so I expect the victim will receive many multiples of the original compensation and in fairly short order despite the usual vehement denials of any wrong-doing.

It just confirms to me that he is one strange, not particularly likeable individual. And he definitely won’t be going to the MLS.

Guy:Incognito

snowblind wrote: »

Oh please. Such over dramatic words. People have always discussed topics of the day, no need to be so hurt by it (and why on earth?).
.

Discussing something amongst you and your friends/family /work colleagues is different from putting opinion on the Internet as fact for the world to see. People really need to understand that.

People saying on twitter before and during the trial that paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding are rapists for example, should be treated the same as a newspaper printing it.

I'm sure a lot of peoples views would change if it was them accused of raping someone and the front page of the indo had a picture of them with a big headline saying RAPIST. Especially if they were innocent.

~Rebel~

correction wrote: »

I'd be very surprised if this story didn't grow and grow. It hasn't been latched onto yet but the longer it hangs there (and based on that we know so far it'll be hanging for a while yet) someone/something will grab a hold of it and people will latch on after.

It's absolutely horrible that anyone would commit such an awful crime and I always felt Ronaldo was a pretty decent role model too.

A cynical part of me wonders if some broadcasters/publications are wary of inviting abuse and criticism from the hoards of Ronaldo-ites, before they know more. Was delighted that Second Captains gave it proper, detailed coverage with a Speigle journo, and was hugely disappointed that the Totally Football podcast barely gave it a one line mention.

Vincent Vega

https://twitter.com/Cristiano/status/1047490574687907841

https://twitter.com/Cristiano/status/1047490701137784832

Deise Vu

Deise Vu wrote: »

Without her testimony, there is no case to answer.

She'd have a very difficult time re-opening the matter here. The area of signed documents was well tested during the recession as people sought to avoid the implications of mortgages, guarantees and the like, and the defence of "non est factum" or I did not know what I was signing is pretty much impossible to run. Duress may be better, but the main case here involved a woman who signed a guarantee for an abusive husband, the threat was very proximate.

It may be that his legal advisors are telling him she won't be able to take this further, hence his flippant response. But it was terribly judged. A 14 year old could write a better response "it's an appalling crime, I reject each and every allegation made by this particular person, we have a confidentiality agreement that prevents me from saying anything further".

Edit - I just see the post above, evidently he found a 14 year old with 5 minutes to spare.

Silentcorner

What I find strangest of all is how people will invest so much faith in their sports stars that they cannot see what is staring them in the face.

Pro athletes, especially footballers (because of the money involved) exist in a surreal world where their every tantrum or flaw is tolerated or ignored, swept under the carpet. Despite how they may behave in their media performances more often than not they are like children, well capable of deceit and dishonesty.

Ya, women do throw themselves at footballers/sports stars seemingly willing to accept the immaturity/deceit/dishonesty, as silly that may seem to us, but don't forget men are well capable of being blind to those traits also.

The big difficulty with this case, is where it will go from here, and who else has done something similar...if you think Ronaldo is the only sports star who has negotiated an NDA over an incident like this you're kidding yourself, in this climate of metoo anything can happen!

snowblind

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Discussing something amongst you and your friends/family /work colleagues is different from putting opinion on the Internet as fact for the world to see. People really need to understand that.

People saying on twitter before and during the trial that paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding are rapists for example, should be treated the same as a newspaper printing it.

I'm sure a lot of peoples views would change if it was them accused of raping someone and the front page of the indo had a picture of them with a big headline saying RAPIST. Especially if they were innocent.

"For the world to see". If I write some stuff online, it will be read by some of my friends. Social media will not magically force my opinion on others. Definitely not to "all the world".

Private people are not mandated to follow journalistic ethics on their social media posts. So no, they shouldn't be treated "the same as a newspaper printing it". If you want to expand the authority of the Press Ombudsman to every individual in Ireland, fine, give it a a shot, but that is not the case at the moment.

Paddy Jackson & Stuart Olding can pursue a legal route if they have been slandered. Still doesn't change the fact that I can post my opinions online.
Their innocence hasn't been proven anyways, there was reasonable doubt about the specific charges. Not that this changes anything above.

Benimar

snowblind wrote: »

"For the world to see". If I write some stuff online, it will be read by some of my friends. Social media will not magically force my opinion on others. Definitely not to "all the world".

Private people are not mandated to follow journalistic ethics on their social media posts. So no, they shouldn't be treated "the same as a newspaper printing it". If you want to expand the authority of the Press Ombudsman to every individual in Ireland, fine, give it a a shot, but that is not the case at the moment.

Paddy Jackson & Stuart Olding can pursue a legal route if they have been slandered. Still doesn't change the fact that I can post my opinions online.
Their innocence hasn't been proven anyways, there was reasonable doubt about the specific charges. Not that this changes anything above.

Going a bit off topic, but this attitude really bugs me. Its the fallback for people who have made up their mind about someone but then an outcome doesn't go as they would like.

Once a case goes to court there are only 2 outcomes (bar a hung jury) and they are guilty or not guilty. There is no 'innocent' verdict. People do not have to prove their innocence nor, in most cases, can they as its nearly impossible to prove a negative ie: that they didn't do something.

snowblind

Benimar wrote: »

There is no 'innocent' verdict. People do not have to prove their innocence nor, in most cases, can they as its nearly impossible to prove a negative ie: that they didn't do something.

Yep, exactly what I mean!

cj maxx

Am I the only one surprised that CR7 was into women ?

Cyrus

snowblind wrote: »

Yep, exactly what I mean!

I don't think it was

Vincent Vega

Silentcorner wrote: »

What I find strangest of all is how people will invest so much faith in their sports stars that they cannot see what is staring them in the face.

Pro athletes, especially footballers (because of the money involved) exist in a surreal world where their every tantrum or flaw is tolerated or ignored, swept under the carpet. Despite how they may behave in their media performances more often than not they are like children, well capable of deceit and dishonesty.

Ya, women do throw themselves at footballers/sports stars seemingly willing to accept the immaturity/deceit/dishonesty, as silly that may seem to us, but don't forget men are well capable of being blind to those traits also.

The big difficulty with this case, is where it will go from here, and who else has done something similar...if you think Ronaldo is the only sports star who has negotiated an NDA over an incident like this you're kidding yourself, in this climate of metoo anything can happen!

A quick glance at the average response to his addressing the allegations on his latest FB/Twitter post show just how insane and driven by idol worship some of these people are.
Absolutely unreal levels of blind devotion. :eek:

It's to the extent that I'd genuinely fear for the woman's safety regardless of the outcome.

Royal Legend

Turtwig wrote: »

Spanish press widely speculated that he was going to move because of his tax convictions. I don't recall anything about this. There was some mumblings about it a long time back but nothing specific from tier one sources. That I can recall anyway.

This looks pretty damming but reasonable doubt given Ronnie's legal behemoth should not be improbable. This woman is unbelieavably brave. She's going to make enemies in places she probably didn't even know it was possible to make enemies.

Boards.ie/manchester united team talk/gossip/rumours thread

upandcumming

Niles Crane wrote: »

The thing with his son is very very wierd and confirms the kind of egomaniac he is.What sort of normal man would genuinely want to bring a child into the world without a mother.Of course pointing this out is frowned upon but it gives you a pretty good view of his character.

Such bull****. You've outdone yourself here.

snowblind

Cyrus wrote: »

I don't think it was

What.

I said his innocence isn't proven. Guess what, it's because it can't! That is implied, because I believe anyone who reads the post has enough intelligence to know that. But whatever, assign any ideas to me you have already decided to.

Turtwig

snowblind wrote: »

"For the world to see". If I write some stuff online, it will be read by some of my friends. Social media will not magically force my opinion on others. Definitely not to "all the world".

Private people are not mandated to follow journalistic ethics on their social media posts. So no, they shouldn't be treated "the same as a newspaper printing it". If you want to expand the authority of the Press Ombudsman to every individual in Ireland, fine, give it a a shot, but that is not the case at the moment.

Paddy Jackson & Stuart Olding can pursue a legal route if they have been slandered. Still doesn't change the fact that I can post my opinions online.
Their innocence hasn't been proven anyways, there was reasonable doubt about the specific charges. Not that this changes anything above.

There's a common misconception here:

If you publish something on social media, it's published content. It doesn't matter how much you consider it to be "your opinion" it's a published statement. Private people are mandated to adhere to the laws of their society. If you stated something that defamed or slandered another individual on social media you could be liable.

As it stands, right now you are posting on a privately owned website so there are restrictions on what you can and cannot publish. The reason being not only would be the person liable for the content, the medium through which the litigious material was published would be liable. For example, were you to defame a public figure on boards. Both the site owners and yourself could find yourself drawn into a suit. Same for facebook, twitter, online newspaper comments sections etc.

Cyrus

snowblind wrote: »

What.

I said his innocence isn't proven. Guess what, it's because it can't! That is implied, because I believe anyone who reads the post has enough intelligence to know that. But whatever, assign any ideas to me you have already decided to.

You are wilfully ignoring how it works , no ones innocence is proven ever, only guilt can be proven. So to say innocence wasn’t proven and to try make a point with it is disingenuous in the extreme.

HandsomeBob

Not the biggest fan of Ronaldo but I'm a firm believer in due process and have no time for mob mentality.

Some of the stuff that has been leaked is certainly unsettling but we have no way to verify this information. That's the job of the relevant authorities so I'm happy to let them do their thing without jumping to conclusions.

eagle eye

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Not the biggest fan of Ronaldo but I'm a firm believer in due process and have no time for mob mentality.

Some of the stuff that has been leaked is certainly unsettling but we have no way to verify this information. That's the job of the relevant authorities so I'm happy to let them do their thing without jumping to conclusions.

I'm a firm believer in due process myself but if you get a situation where somebody has a team of lawyers like OJ Simpson had then it's difficult to remain confident in the legal process.

snowblind

Cyrus wrote: »

You are wilfully ignoring how it works , no ones innocence is proven ever, only guilt can be proven. So to say innocence wasn’t proven and to try make a point with it is disingenuous in the extreme.

No it's not. Innocence cannot be proven and hasn't been proven. Both are true. That's the gist of it. No need to try and project opinions that I haven't communicated.

snowblind

Turtwig wrote: »

There's a common misconception here:

If you publish something on social media, it's published content. It doesn't matter how much you consider it to be "your opinion" it's a published statement. Private people are mandated to adhere to the laws of their society. If you stated something that defamed or slandered another individual on social media you could be liable.

As it stands, right now you are posting on a privately owned website so there are restrictions on what you can and cannot publish. The reason being not only would be the person liable for the content, the medium through which the litigious material was published would be liable. For example, were you to defame a public figure on boards. Both the site owners and yourself could find yourself drawn into a suit. Same for facebook, twitter, online newspaper comments sections etc.

How does this contradict my post? Quote from my post:
"Paddy Jackson & Stuart Olding can pursue a legal route if they have been slandered."

I disagreed that social media posts should adhere to the same guidelines as newspapers. They have journalistic ethics as their guide. I do not.

Obviously any platform can choose what they allow. You can see from this thread that I've been moderated. Totally cool with that.

So...we don't disagree about anything here, you too want to continue this non existent argument?

snowblind

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Not the biggest fan of Ronaldo but I'm a firm believer in due process and have no time for mob mentality.

Some of the stuff that has been leaked is certainly unsettling but we have no way to verify this information. That's the job of the relevant authorities so I'm happy to let them do their thing without jumping to conclusions.

I'm a human being so I make deductions on what I read. If I present my opinions to others, I'm well entitled to do so. If I claim as a fact that person x is guilty of y, I can be sued, or banned from posting, or both. Due process is for the court, and I'm glad, because it'd be helluva lot work to do on my own on every opinion I form daily.

pleas advice

cjmc wrote: »

Am I the only one surprised that CR7 was into women ?

I thought he'd be too into himself,

Cyrus

snowblind wrote: »

No it's not. Innocence cannot be proven and hasn't been proven. Both are true. That's the gist of it. No need to try and project opinions that I haven't communicated.

and will never be proven because no one has to prove their innocence.

Your inference is that failure to prove innocence is a suggestion of guilt.

snowblind

snowblind wrote: »

If I present my opinions to others, I'm well entitled to do so.

And if they are defamatory, the target of your comments is well entitled to sue.

The law of defamation deals with expressions, you can think whatever you like, but if you express it you are subject to the same law as the media. "It's my opinion" is no more legitimate than an editor in a newspaper saying "it's my opinion".

Though obviously a newspaper may reach more people and the damage may be greater than, say, an opinion circulated to one other person.

snowblind

Cyrus wrote: »

and will never be proven because no one has to prove their innocence.

Your inference is that failure to prove innocence is a suggestion of guilt.

In the same way you cannot prove inference, just keep saying you know what I meant and maybe one day you will achieve psychic status. Hint: you're wrong and clearly too attached to the straw man you have made in your own image.