Ulster Rugby 2017-18

First topic message reminder :

I was thinkung similar McCloskey for me has been better than Arnold and Farrell and just isnt being picked. Hopefully a resurgent Ulster will make it all better

clive I think you're wrong as the outrage seems to be about the word itself rather than what it alludes to. I'm just going by the comments from the femistas I've heard

Sin é wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:"Most people here defending the behaviour of Jackson & Co. are just confirming their own beliefs. You guys need to hear what other "

Jackson was found not guilty of any crime and said little to nothing in the whatsapp chats so why name him as if he's the main player in all of this?
Also, I for one do not form any belief system based upon the writings of any pulp journo. I, like many others believe it or not, form my own set of morals without needing to refer to any news rag or a 2000 year old, plagiarized script for that matter.
If this review makes any reference to social media, the bible or 'tomorrow's toilet paper' journalism then those being reviewed will be able to and have every right to take the IRFU and UR to the cleaners.

The whole issue that people have with this case has gone completely over your head then.

In the ROI, because of this case, the Irish Gov. (despite the laws around court cases are a bit better) are now about to re-evaluate and update the school curriculum on sex education to include discussion on the issue of consent, relationships etc. (up to now it seemingly is very much about biology than anything else). And the Justice Depart. are looking to look at how the victims of r*** can be protected more (with perhaps r*** victims who are regarded as witnesses being given their own legal counsel).  

The problem people have with the Belfast trial was that it was like the woman was on trial even though she was only a witness, not the men involved.

Except one of the tenets of any criminal justice system is the right to confront an accuser, something some seem to forget and all victims have their version challenged in a trial no matter the accusation

r*** trial is particularly difficult situation and the system in the UK could do with a bit of improving. Its not fair on either party because its so easy to defend (all the defence has to do is introduce any reasonable doubt).

Except that's the same with any charge, you really are highlighting your ignorance on everything here

Sin é wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:"Most people here defending the behaviour of Jackson & Co. are just confirming their own beliefs. You guys need to hear what other "

Jackson was found not guilty of any crime and said little to nothing in the whatsapp chats so why name him as if he's the main player in all of this?
Also, I for one do not form any belief system based upon the writings of any pulp journo. I, like many others believe it or not, form my own set of morals without needing to refer to any news rag or a 2000 year old, plagiarized script for that matter.
If this review makes any reference to social media, the bible or 'tomorrow's toilet paper' journalism then those being reviewed will be able to and have every right to take the IRFU and UR to the cleaners.

The whole issue that people have with this case has gone completely over your head then.

In the ROI, because of this case, the Irish Gov. (despite the laws around court cases are a bit better) are now about to re-evaluate and update the school curriculum on sex education to include discussion on the issue of consent, relationships etc. (up to now it seemingly is very much about biology than anything else). And the Justice Depart. are looking to look at how the victims of r*** can be protected more (with perhaps r*** victims who are regarded as witnesses being given their own legal counsel).  

The problem people have with the Belfast trial was that it was like the woman was on trial even though she was only a witness, not the men involved.

Except one of the tenets of any criminal justice system is the right to confront an accuser, something some seem to forget and all victims have their version challenged in a trial no matter the accusation

r*** trial is particularly difficult situation and the system in the UK could do with a bit of improving. Its not fair on either party because its so easy to defend (all the defence has to do is introduce any reasonable doubt).

Why should someone be convicted of a crime when there is doubt they committed it?

Most crimes are not definitely proved. Lots of grey in there.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Most crimes are not definitely proved. Lots of grey in there.

There always is, that's why it's called reasonable doubt rather than any doubt

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

clivemcl wrote:And here’s Sin saying the IRFU have grounds to scrap contracts based simply on having sex without being in a committed relationship..

I didn't say that. Two lads and one woman (a teenager) is completely different to a one night stand, particularly when this particular social scene ended up in a nine week court case.

Its about bringing the sport into disrepute. People love and respect people like Rory Best and Paul O'Connell because they are obviously, decent family men and values that most people will identify with or at least want to identify with. PJ and Olding are the complete opposite of that. Just think of it, they went up to a bedroom and shared a teenager.

Brendan Fanning on the subject also worth reading:  https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/brendan-fanning-irfu-have-little-choice-but-to-sever-ties-with-talented-ulster-duo-36762701.html

Anything unsavoury that Paul O'Connell ever did was fairly quickly covered up. He is no angel. You keep using the word teenager like the girl was under age, she wasnt. You seem most offended that they shared a girl and yet turn a blind eye when Murray and Zebo did the same.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make bringing Paul O'Connell into it. I don't recall him ever being mixed up in some sex scandal or even a whisper about it. Do you want to fill us in?

Kathy Sheridan is worth a read today in the Irish Times (bearing in mind her now deceased husband, Pat Geraghty  was an old Clongownian and Munster's PR person during the glory years. He was a former Leinster rugby PR person as well, so I'm sure she would have heard a few stories.

Sportsmen are role models – whether they like it or not
Kathy Sheridan: Decent men who have influence stand up for those who don’t

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sportsmen-are-role-models-whether-they-like-it-or-not-1.3449342

Are you capable of thinking for yourself? All your opinions seem to come from someone else?

As for your comment about Limerick being a small place? Don't some of Munsters players still live in Cork? And didn't the move to UL only happen a year or so ago?

Most people here defending the behaviour of Jackson & Co. are just confirming their own beliefs. You guys need to hear what other people think.

Some Munster players did (and continue to do), but Cork isn't much bigger than Limerick. Munster players just wouldn't get away with anything - they are too well known right around Munster.

And yet it was only a video being released online that exposed Zebo and Murray, it's not like they are never in Dublin or anything

What behaviour? Having a threesome? They are entitled to do these things in their own lives, people are more than entitled to defend their right to do so, doesn't mean they agree with it.

Maybe if you saw beyond your own sanctimony you'd realise that

Which proves the point that they can't get away with anything (even in Dublin). Probably why it explains why when they have time off they head to New York!

You keep missing the point about the difference between the two situations (and by the way, plenty of people were fairly disappointed with the behavior of Murray & Zebo at the time, including myself.)
1. Zebo & Murray didn't make the video. They did not publish it online. They didn't boast about it the next day. They kept their mouths shut and said nothing about the woman. Zebo (who would have been a bit wild) completely changed his lifestyle and settled down. Murray was always fairly quiet and serious, so I'd imagine that was probably a once off where he learned an important lesson.

How do you know they didn't say anything about her?

Because if they did, more than likely it would have been all over social media. The Independent did an article on it (actually interviewed the woman involved who said she regretted what happened). I remember and Indo said they had not commented.  Pat Geraghty was the Munster PR person at the time and I'm pretty sure he would have taken them in hand. He was renowned for his protection of the players (and took no crap from them either).

So Munster and the media have full access to all their text and whatsapp messages?

You really are clueless, just because it wasn't reported doesn't mean it didn't happen

The only reason these messages are public, is because they were evidence in a trial and the police and prosecution had access to them. The only reason Gilroys are public is because the prosecution barrister is a right pr!ck

I'd imagine that Munster rugby explains to them how they need to behave and then trusts them. I'm sure they are well aware that they live in a goldfish bowl and they can bring up case studies about all the rumours about ROG (his wife's sister was seemingly was pregnant by him at one stage even though his wife doesn't have a sister), to the incidents involving Zebo & Murray.

The video of zebo & Murray went around on a WhatsApp group which they were probably members of and they didn't comment on it then, so its unlikely that they would have said anything elsewhere.

Some would think the 4 defence lawyers were right pricks for displaying the complaints underwear in court. What was that about?

Sin é wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

clivemcl wrote:And here’s Sin saying the IRFU have grounds to scrap contracts based simply on having sex without being in a committed relationship..

I didn't say that. Two lads and one woman (a teenager) is completely different to a one night stand, particularly when this particular social scene ended up in a nine week court case.

Its about bringing the sport into disrepute. People love and respect people like Rory Best and Paul O'Connell because they are obviously, decent family men and values that most people will identify with or at least want to identify with. PJ and Olding are the complete opposite of that. Just think of it, they went up to a bedroom and shared a teenager.

Brendan Fanning on the subject also worth reading:  https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/brendan-fanning-irfu-have-little-choice-but-to-sever-ties-with-talented-ulster-duo-36762701.html

Anything unsavoury that Paul O'Connell ever did was fairly quickly covered up. He is no angel. You keep using the word teenager like the girl was under age, she wasnt. You seem most offended that they shared a girl and yet turn a blind eye when Murray and Zebo did the same.

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make bringing Paul O'Connell into it. I don't recall him ever being mixed up in some sex scandal or even a whisper about it. Do you want to fill us in?

Kathy Sheridan is worth a read today in the Irish Times (bearing in mind her now deceased husband, Pat Geraghty  was an old Clongownian and Munster's PR person during the glory years. He was a former Leinster rugby PR person as well, so I'm sure she would have heard a few stories.

Sportsmen are role models – whether they like it or not
Kathy Sheridan: Decent men who have influence stand up for those who don’t

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/sportsmen-are-role-models-whether-they-like-it-or-not-1.3449342

Are you capable of thinking for yourself? All your opinions seem to come from someone else?

As for your comment about Limerick being a small place? Don't some of Munsters players still live in Cork? And didn't the move to UL only happen a year or so ago?

Most people here defending the behaviour of Jackson & Co. are just confirming their own beliefs. You guys need to hear what other people think.

Some Munster players did (and continue to do), but Cork isn't much bigger than Limerick. Munster players just wouldn't get away with anything - they are too well known right around Munster.

And yet it was only a video being released online that exposed Zebo and Murray, it's not like they are never in Dublin or anything

What behaviour? Having a threesome? They are entitled to do these things in their own lives, people are more than entitled to defend their right to do so, doesn't mean they agree with it.

Maybe if you saw beyond your own sanctimony you'd realise that

Which proves the point that they can't get away with anything (even in Dublin). Probably why it explains why when they have time off they head to New York!

You keep missing the point about the difference between the two situations (and by the way, plenty of people were fairly disappointed with the behavior of Murray & Zebo at the time, including myself.)
1. Zebo & Murray didn't make the video. They did not publish it online. They didn't boast about it the next day. They kept their mouths shut and said nothing about the woman. Zebo (who would have been a bit wild) completely changed his lifestyle and settled down. Murray was always fairly quiet and serious, so I'd imagine that was probably a once off where he learned an important lesson.

How do you know they didn't say anything about her?

Because if they did, more than likely it would have been all over social media. The Independent did an article on it (actually interviewed the woman involved who said she regretted what happened). I remember and Indo said they had not commented.  Pat Geraghty was the Munster PR person at the time and I'm pretty sure he would have taken them in hand. He was renowned for his protection of the players (and took no crap from them either).

So Munster and the media have full access to all their text and whatsapp messages?

You really are clueless, just because it wasn't reported doesn't mean it didn't happen

The only reason these messages are public, is because they were evidence in a trial and the police and prosecution had access to them. The only reason Gilroys are public is because the prosecution barrister is a right pr!ck

I'd imagine that Munster rugby explains to them how they need to behave and then trusts them. I'm sure they are well aware that they live in a goldfish bowl and they can bring up case studies about all the rumours about ROG (his wife's sister was seemingly was pregnant by him at one stage even though his wife doesn't have a sister), to the incidents involving Zebo & Murray.

The video of zebo & Murray went around on a WhatsApp group which they were probably members of and they didn't comment on it then, so its unlikely that they would have said anything elsewhere.

Some would think the 4 defence lawyers were right pricks for displaying the complaints underwear in court. What was that about?

More avoidance, you really are a class act. You don't know what Murray or Zebo said but are happy to claim that they made no derogatory comments merely based on the fact you don't know what was said

And then attempt to change the subject

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:"Most people here defending the behaviour of Jackson & Co. are just confirming their own beliefs. You guys need to hear what other "

Jackson was found not guilty of any crime and said little to nothing in the whatsapp chats so why name him as if he's the main player in all of this?
Also, I for one do not form any belief system based upon the writings of any pulp journo. I, like many others believe it or not, form my own set of morals without needing to refer to any news rag or a 2000 year old, plagiarized script for that matter.
If this review makes any reference to social media, the bible or 'tomorrow's toilet paper' journalism then those being reviewed will be able to and have every right to take the IRFU and UR to the cleaners.

The whole issue that people have with this case has gone completely over your head then.

In the ROI, because of this case, the Irish Gov. (despite the laws around court cases are a bit better) are now about to re-evaluate and update the school curriculum on sex education to include discussion on the issue of consent, relationships etc. (up to now it seemingly is very much about biology than anything else). And the Justice Depart. are looking to look at how the victims of r*** can be protected more (with perhaps r*** victims who are regarded as witnesses being given their own legal counsel).  

The problem people have with the Belfast trial was that it was like the woman was on trial even though she was only a witness, not the men involved.

Except one of the tenets of any criminal justice system is the right to confront an accuser, something some seem to forget and all victims have their version challenged in a trial no matter the accusation

r*** trial is particularly difficult situation and the system in the UK could do with a bit of improving. Its not fair on either party because its so easy to defend (all the defence has to do is introduce any reasonable doubt).

Except that's the same with any charge, you really are highlighting your ignorance on everything here

No, its not. If someone is being tried for assault, there will be evidence of maybe a broken jaw and probably an injured fist or someone actually seeing it happen. That isn't always the case with something like r***.

What's the point in this defence against Sin, forget it guys. Lets try moving discussion forward.

Gilroy's use of the word 'promiscuous' I don't think is the worry, it's the whole sentence. 'Did any sluts get f**ked' is a sentence that perhaps says a lot about how he/they think about women, and perhaps suggests that they maybe have this as an objective/mission on nights out.

Also... this message was a private one-to-one message, not a group one. So the argument for bravado is weakened in this case.

I'm just pretty sure now that whatever fate Olding and Jackson face, Gilroy will face likewise.

This I don't think is about threesomes, or the drinks order, but about their demeaning language towards females.

I'm not giving you my POV here, merely highlighting what the public perception and reaction to Gilroy's text is and will likely be.

As mentioned above, Jackson comes out cleanest.

Jackson said nothing derogatory or demeaning about females, has been found not guilty of any crime. What did he do? He didn't tell his mate to go away when he was in his room with a girl.

In other news, the Glasgow match has been rescheduled for April 21st. The same night as the Frampton fight which will impact attendance which was probably going to be down anyway

I think a lot of people hink he raped her Clive and don't want him around the club or location. You can argue he was found not guilty but plenty of people don't agree with the verdict.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think a lot of people hink he raped her Clive and don't want him around the club or location. You can argue he was found not guilty but plenty of people don't agree with the verdict.

Problem is 7.5, no one knows what actually happened. Anyone saying that without having sat through every second of the trial are unable to form a fully informed opinion and even then you aren't working with the full facts

So many of those I've seen calling him a r***ist, are doing so by using their own interpretation of the evidence and ignoring evidence that contradicts it. Too many went in with an opinion and use certain elements to reinforce it

Simply pointing out marty that you can't ignore a large section of people who think they did it. Personally if they were at my local.club I'd still watch the team but I'd remain deadly silent should they score etc. I also wouldn't be pretending to be confused over someone booing them.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think a lot of people hink he raped her Clive and don't want him around the club or location. You can argue he was found not guilty but plenty of people don't agree with the verdict.

In which case the legal verdict does not protect the defendant. Why don’t we see people campaigning for that?
I’m asking folk to be open minded here. Forget it’s Jackson, forget its Belfast. Imagine.

Imagine somebody makes a false claim (it happens) about a heinous crime. Despite the jury and court saying you are not guilty, every person you know and anyone you are likely to meet in future will have a tiny bit of doubt in their mind that you did it. Maybe even your own mum or sister sometimes secretly ask themselves ‘what if he DID?’.
Your employer feels you are toxic and are trying the best to get rid of you. Your career that you’ve worked so hard for is in tatters, the job you love is strategising how to abandon you.
To have any chance of a normal life and to rebuild your career you may have to leave the country, leave your friends and family. And even then it’s tough because news of what you might have done has spread abroad too.

The main argument of keeping the accused a secret is that no one else may know whether to come forward from.abuse themselves or to offer evidence.

Im not disagreeing but at the same time if someone has their mind made up before hand, you aren't likely to win them over. Sometimes you gotta say screw them though I don't think Ulster will

I think they'll ride out the storm and hope they can rehab their image with new information that softens some peoples stances and bring them back into the fold

I'd agree with that marty. You see.it all the time everywhere. Depending on the nationality I'm sure most people could already call the argument a lot of.users on here would take (more rugby than these serious topics).

Marty wrote:More avoidance, you really are a class act. You don't know what Murray or Zebo said but are happy to claim that they made no derogatory comments merely based on the fact you don't know what was said Rolling Eyes

And then attempt to change the subject

Your only defence is that Zebo and Murray seem to have got away with something similar and you don't like it when I point out the difference in the situations because it makes those lads look like right pricks with their derogatory text messages which gives a real insight into their character.

clivemcl wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think a lot of people hink he raped her Clive and don't want him around the club or location. You can argue he was found not guilty but plenty of people don't agree with the verdict.

In which case the legal verdict does not protect the defendant. Why don’t we see people campaigning for that?
I’m asking folk to be open minded here. Forget it’s Jackson, forget its Belfast. Imagine.

Imagine somebody makes a false claim (it happens) about a heinous crime. Despite the jury and court saying you are not guilty, every person you know and anyone you are likely to meet in future will have a tiny bit of doubt in their mind that you did it. Maybe even your mum or your sister simetime secretly ask themselves ‘what if he DID?’.
Your employer feels you are tixic and are trying the best to get rid of you. Your career that you’ve worked so hard for is in tatters, the job you love is strategising how to abandon you.
To have any chance of a normal life and to rebuild your career you may have to leave the country, leave your friends and family. And even then it’s tough because news of what you might have done has spread abroad too.

Anyone every hear of Roscoe 'Fatty' Arbuckle?

He's been going round my head following all this, one of the biggest silent movie stars who held a party during prohibition in which a young woman died. Was claimed his size killed her when he raped her, he was ostracised and his career ended over the case. He went through multiple trials, until finally he was found not guilty with the jury actually apologising to him for his ordeal.


https://www.thecut.com/2017/11/before-harvey-weinstein-virginia-rappe-roscoe-fatty-arbuckle.html

Sin é wrote:

Marty wrote:More avoidance, you really are a class act. You don't know what Murray or Zebo said but are happy to claim that they made no derogatory comments merely based on the fact you don't know what was said Rolling Eyes

And then attempt to change the subject

Your only defence is that Zebo and Murray seem to have got away with something similar and you don't like it when I point out the difference in the situations because it makes those lads look like right pricks with their derogatory text messages which gives a real insight into their character.

I haven't claimed anything about them just that you claimed they didn't say anything derogatory except you don't know that

The only reason these comments are public is because they were evidence in a trial

Which comments are the problem then, please do tell?

Sin e still avoiding the use of words I see.

We do know one of the Munster lads used words considered totally unacceptable - it is a matter of public record.

No Ulster player used the word r**e
They did use the word f****d
Is your contention that the word f****d is unacceptable but the words bitch and n*****r are ok ?

clivemcl wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think a lot of people hink he raped her Clive and don't want him around the club or location. You can argue he was found not guilty but plenty of people don't agree with the verdict.

In which case the legal verdict does not protect the defendant. Why don’t we see people campaigning for that?
I’m asking folk to be open minded here. Forget it’s Jackson, forget its Belfast. Imagine.

Imagine somebody makes a false claim (it happens) about a heinous crime. Despite the jury and court saying you are not guilty, every person you know and anyone you are likely to meet in future will have a tiny bit of doubt in their mind that you did it. Maybe even your own mum or sister sometimes secretly ask themselves ‘what if he DID?’.
Your employer feels you are toxic and are trying the best to get rid of you. Your career that you’ve worked so hard for is in tatters, the job you love is strategising how to abandon you.
To have any chance of a normal life and to rebuild your career you may have to leave the country, leave your friends and family. And even then it’s tough because news of what you might have done has spread abroad too.

So, the system is failing everyone and needs to be fixed. People in the ROI were not used to seeing all the detail of such a trial (because of how the justice system deals with such trials here). People were shocked at how the woman was treated to 8 days in the witness stand being questioned by 4 barristers and with no legal representation of her own. PJ, who was charged with r*** was less than a day in the witness box and he had his own barrister.

The Irish Times had an article by a woman who was a juror on a r*** case who said that even though she felt that the man accused of r*** was guilty, she couldn't have voted him guilty because if there was any question mark over anything, she had to give him the benefit of the doubt because that is the way they are instructed by the judge to come to a decision.

geoff999rugby wrote:Sin e still avoiding the use of words I see.

We do know one of the Munster lads used words considered totally unacceptable - it is a matter of public record.

No Ulster player used the word r**e
They did use the word f****d
Is your contention that the word f****d is unacceptable but the words bitch and n*****r are ok ?

geoff999rugby wrote:Sin e still avoiding the use of words I see.

We do know one of the Munster lads used a word considered totally unacceptable - it is a matter of public record.

No Ulster player used the word r**e
They did use the word f****d
Is your contention that the word f****d is unacceptable but the word n*****r is ok ?

Sorry, I don't know (or have at least forgotten) what you are getting at here. Could you explain.

I don't think there is anything wrong with using the word 'ra*pe' even though they seem to think so here (I.e., there is an organisation called the r*** Crisis Centre).

For the record, its not about the words they used, its what there meaning is. Don't know what that other word (n*****r) is.

For those who consider the players guilty how do you explain the evidence of Dara Florence - a woman

Sin é wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:Sin e still avoiding the use of words I see.

We do know one of the Munster lads used a word considered totally unacceptable - it is a matter of public record.

No Ulster player used the word r**e
They did use the word f****d
Is your contention that the word f****d is unacceptable but the word n*****r is ok ?

Sorry, I don't know (or have at least forgotten) what you are getting at here. Could you explain.

I don't think there is anything wrong with using the word 'ra*pe' even though they seem to think so here (I.e., there is an organisation called the r*** Crisis Centre).

For the record, its not about the words they used, its what there meaning is. Don't know what that other word (n*****r) is.

The words bitch and n****r were used by one of the Munster lads when speaking to the young lady in their threesome
I assume you are being obtuse with reference to the n word because I inadvertently added an extra *

On rugby news Carbery says he is going nowhere - neither Ulster or Munster

geoff999rugby wrote:For those who consider the players guilty how do you explain the evidence of Dara Florence - a woman

She was a key witness who introduced reasonable doubt. Didn't she also say that she thought that Jackson was having sex with the woman which he claims not to have had.

Sin é wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:For those who consider the players guilty how do you explain the evidence of Dara Florence - a woman

She was a key witness who introduced reasonable doubt. Didn't she also say that she thought that Jackson was having sex with the woman which he claims not to have had.

And also said they invited her in, not known many rapists who invite bystanders they barely know to join in

Either way you cut it, Ulster have a tough decision.

Having been found not guilty of ILLEGAL sexual misconduct, the players will likely return to Ulster's ranks. The 2 boys, along with Gilroy, are likely going to have to involve themselves in charity work and show a level of contriteness for the commentary on woman. "Locker room talk" is not an excuse as Trump and the Fox anchor found out a couple of years ago.

They have made some poor decisions and missed a season of their careers (as well as had their names dragged through the mud). Looking about, A Smith got several months out of the All Blacks for sexual misconduct whilst on team duty, J Woodgate got a year out of the England football national team after being convicted of assault (hard to tell with his injuries how long it actually was) and the Aussie cricketers got a year for blatant cheating on team duty. Not sure any of the US sportsmen realistically can be used as a model as they get away with murder (allegedly). For disreputable (yet legal) behaviour, they have done the time.

In the short run, they need rugby to get back up to standard and playing some local games may allow them some opportunities to remake a connection with fans unless they decide to go.

geoff999rugby wrote:

Sin é wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:Sin e still avoiding the use of words I see.

We do know one of the Munster lads used a word considered totally unacceptable - it is a matter of public record.

No Ulster player used the word r**e
They did use the word f****d
Is your contention that the word f****d is unacceptable but the word n*****r is ok ?

Sorry, I don't know (or have at least forgotten) what you are getting at here. Could you explain.

I don't think there is anything wrong with using the word 'ra*pe' even though they seem to think so here (I.e., there is an organisation called the r*** Crisis Centre).

For the record, its not about the words they used, its what there meaning is. Don't know what that other word (n*****r) is.

The words bitch and n****r were used by one of the Munster lads when speaking to the young lady in their threesome
I assume you are being obtuse with reference to the n word because I inadvertently added an extra *

I thought it was that, but your extra * threw me.

I presume the 'N' word was used by Zebo who can because of his own racial profile. In fact, he is big into that kind of language from his rapping.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=person of African descent%20rap

Now that defies belief let alone logic.

Do you seriously enojy making an arse of yourself Sin é ?

Is there any danger of not talking about this trial anymore or at least starting a different thread for it.

I'm sick of seeing this discussion everywhere i look and was hoping on here i could stick to seeing something different. For example about our new signing or our game this weekend

Sin é wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think a lot of people hink he raped her Clive and don't want him around the club or location. You can argue he was found not guilty but plenty of people don't agree with the verdict.

In which case the legal verdict does not protect the defendant. Why don’t we see people campaigning for that?
I’m asking folk to be open minded here. Forget it’s Jackson, forget its Belfast. Imagine.

Imagine somebody makes a false claim (it happens) about a heinous crime. Despite the jury and court saying you are not guilty, every person you know and anyone you are likely to meet in future will have a tiny bit of doubt in their mind that you did it. Maybe even your own mum or sister sometimes secretly ask themselves ‘what if he DID?’.
Your employer feels you are toxic and are trying the best to get rid of you. Your career that you’ve worked so hard for is in tatters, the job you love is strategising how to abandon you.
To have any chance of a normal life and to rebuild your career you may have to leave the country, leave your friends and family. And even then it’s tough because news of what you might have done has spread abroad too.

So, the system is failing everyone and needs to be fixed. People in the ROI were not used to seeing all the detail of such a trial (because of how the justice system deals with such trials here). People were shocked at how the woman was treated to 8 days in the witness stand being questioned by 4 barristers and with no legal representation of her own. PJ, who was charged with r*** was less than a day in the witness box and he had his own barrister.

The Irish Times had an article by a woman who was a juror on a r*** case who said that even though she felt that the man accused of r*** was guilty, she couldn't have voted him guilty because if there was any question mark over anything, she had to give him the benefit of the doubt because that is the way they are instructed by the judge to come to a decision.

AND??????

YOUR POINT?????

ARE KIDDING ME????

You seriously disagree with the stance of 'let's be 100% sure before imprisoning people'???

You and that woman are basically suggesting that it should be ok to find people guilty even if we aren't 100% sure.

I can't believe I'm having this argument.

neilthom7 wrote:Is there any danger of not talking about this trial anymore or at least starting a different thread for it.

I'm sick of seeing this discussion everywhere i look and was hoping on here i could stick to seeing something different. For example about our new signing or our game this weekend

I'm not sure talking about the game this weekend would be any better

I'd have liked more questions asked of her geoff. It certainly introduces inconsistencies into evidence.whoch suggests it was forceful and suggests the defenders lied.

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

geoff999rugby wrote:For those who consider the players guilty how do you explain the evidence of Dara Florence - a woman

She was a key witness who introduced reasonable doubt. Didn't she also say that she thought that Jackson was having sex with the woman which he claims not to have had.

And also said they invited her in, not known many rapists who invite bystanders they barely know to join in.

Its a weird one alright bearing in mind PJ & O had a 3some with someone they didn't know. Hardly surprising they were up for a 4some.

Most r*** cases don't have the luxury of an eye witness sadly. And whilst it's a fair argument that the girl could have been frozen in fear. It also has to be said, I'm sure many r*** claimants would have wished that a passer by would have stumbled upon their attack.

clivemcl wrote:

Sin é wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think a lot of people hink he raped her Clive and don't want him around the club or location. You can argue he was found not guilty but plenty of people don't agree with the verdict.

In which case the legal verdict does not protect the defendant. Why don’t we see people campaigning for that?
I’m asking folk to be open minded here. Forget it’s Jackson, forget its Belfast. Imagine.

Imagine somebody makes a false claim (it happens) about a heinous crime. Despite the jury and court saying you are not guilty, every person you know and anyone you are likely to meet in future will have a tiny bit of doubt in their mind that you did it. Maybe even your own mum or sister sometimes secretly ask themselves ‘what if he DID?’.
Your employer feels you are toxic and are trying the best to get rid of you. Your career that you’ve worked so hard for is in tatters, the job you love is strategising how to abandon you.
To have any chance of a normal life and to rebuild your career you may have to leave the country, leave your friends and family. And even then it’s tough because news of what you might have done has spread abroad too.

So, the system is failing everyone and needs to be fixed. People in the ROI were not used to seeing all the detail of such a trial (because of how the justice system deals with such trials here). People were shocked at how the woman was treated to 8 days in the witness stand being questioned by 4 barristers and with no legal representation of her own. PJ, who was charged with r*** was less than a day in the witness box and he had his own barrister.

The Irish Times had an article by a woman who was a juror on a r*** case who said that even though she felt that the man accused of r*** was guilty, she couldn't have voted him guilty because if there was any question mark over anything, she had to give him the benefit of the doubt because that is the way they are instructed by the judge to come to a decision.

AND??????

YOUR POINT?????

ARE KIDDING ME????

You seriously disagree with the stance of 'let's be 100% sure before imprisoning people'???

You and that woman are basically suggesting that it should be ok to find people guilty even if we aren't 100% sure.

I can't believe I'm having this argument.

So, you think the system works perfectly well then despite the low number of convictions in such cases?

Sin é wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

Sin é wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think a lot of people hink he raped her Clive and don't want him around the club or location. You can argue he was found not guilty but plenty of people don't agree with the verdict.

In which case the legal verdict does not protect the defendant. Why don’t we see people campaigning for that?
I’m asking folk to be open minded here. Forget it’s Jackson, forget its Belfast. Imagine.

Imagine somebody makes a false claim (it happens) about a heinous crime. Despite the jury and court saying you are not guilty, every person you know and anyone you are likely to meet in future will have a tiny bit of doubt in their mind that you did it. Maybe even your own mum or sister sometimes secretly ask themselves ‘what if he DID?’.
Your employer feels you are toxic and are trying the best to get rid of you. Your career that you’ve worked so hard for is in tatters, the job you love is strategising how to abandon you.
To have any chance of a normal life and to rebuild your career you may have to leave the country, leave your friends and family. And even then it’s tough because news of what you might have done has spread abroad too.

So, the system is failing everyone and needs to be fixed. People in the ROI were not used to seeing all the detail of such a trial (because of how the justice system deals with such trials here). People were shocked at how the woman was treated to 8 days in the witness stand being questioned by 4 barristers and with no legal representation of her own. PJ, who was charged with r*** was less than a day in the witness box and he had his own barrister.

The Irish Times had an article by a woman who was a juror on a r*** case who said that even though she felt that the man accused of r*** was guilty, she couldn't have voted him guilty because if there was any question mark over anything, she had to give him the benefit of the doubt because that is the way they are instructed by the judge to come to a decision.

AND??????

YOUR POINT?????

ARE KIDDING ME????

You seriously disagree with the stance of 'let's be 100% sure before imprisoning people'???

You and that woman are basically suggesting that it should be ok to find people guilty even if we aren't 100% sure.

I can't believe I'm having this argument.

So, you think the system works perfectly well then despite the low number of convictions in such cases?

I think it's difficult to have the evidence required.
Do rapists escape punishment? Of course.
Does that mean it's ok to put defendants in prison without the evidence just in case, because... well... probably?

NO!!!

OF COURSE NOT!!!!

How many times in all sorts of cases are 100 per cent proven Clive?

How would I know that 7.5?

I guess all the times where forensic evidence or eye witnesses make it clear cut.

Everyone likes to simply say 'I Believe Her' or 'They Did It'.

Let's call a spade a spade here.

If you think the jurors were biased, just say so. Call the jurors wrong. Because that's what it boils down to, but nobody wants to come out and say something so accusatory.

The prosecution? Maybe they didn't do a good enough job? If that's what you think, say so.

If you believe the judge was biased in how she advised the jurors, then state that implicitly.

What I can't deal with is those who were saying 'I Believe Her' even before the trial, who believed then the evidence was irrelevant, and are pretty much now still saying the evidence is irrelevant.

She shouldn't have been in the witness box so long? Maybe. Maybe that's worth looking at.

Does it make any difference to the lack of evidence making jurors sure they weren't imprisoning innocent men? I don't think it does.

Just thought you'd know due to your last statement. On reflection this could be just aimed at r*** trials but then it makes convicting rapists almost impossible.

Sine, this is truly a new low.

7 1/2, this is the funny thing about trials, it's only the jury's opinion that matters. No one else is privy to all the facts surrounding the case. This makes anyone else's opinion worthless. See how that works?

It's called reasonable doubt! Not 100%.