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

UlsterinKildare wrote:

Sin é wrote:
The woman that was mixed up in a threesome with a couple of Lions a few years back was an audit accountant with one of the big accountancy firms. Bearing in mind that no crime was committed, her business media profile was taken down from Linked in by the company and she moved (or was moved) to the UK.

That is wrong.

I previously worked for the Company where the girl involved was also employed at the time of the incident. I can confirm that the employer DID NOT force the employee to remove her LinkedIn profile or move her to another business unit. It was much more nuanced than that.

You shouldn't post comment as fact if it is just your opinion or unconfirmed rumour.

Let's just stick to the rugby talk.

I didn't claim that the company forced her to remove her media profile. It was removed though. Since you know so much about it, why was it removed and why did she change job bearing in mind she seemed to be very happy after the event for bagging a few Lions and even bragged about it on social media?

hi Clive,

It is just typical of the times we live in. These boys are guilty, but not guilty of r...

What they are guilty of, is being idiots. You could imagine them on a night out thinking they are the bees knees, acting up like knobs, but you cannot jail them for that. I would like to think that this has brought them down a few pegs, and put their ego's back in check.

For me though, the girl is just as guilty as them.

LD - I'm no parent but if I was and it was my daughter there's no way I would 'wipe the floor' with her after going through this kind of event. Whatever happened there's no doubting this will have had a huge effect on her and she will have many psychological scars from it. The court case will have been traumatic as well, with her intimate details dissected in minute detail, her clothes paraded in the court and no doubt her character called into question by the prosecution.

This girl needs love and family support – not punishment. There have been false r*** accusations in the past but I don’t see it with this one, and I think the calls to trial her for it (and the defence lawyer’s suggesting that she only brought it up because he was an Ulster player) was way OTT. You’re making this a black and white case but there are many shades of grey here.

Going back to a house doesn't mean consent, she may well have been some star struck teenager who saw an opportunity to party with people she saw as celebs, we don't know but going back to a house to a party doesn't mean a woman is looking for sex. I've been to parties like that and I've seen women there not looking for sex, just to enjoy life.

I also know a woman who's gone back to a party like that and been drugged and attacked sexually and she believes she is to blame for it still, so really don't appreciate it when people throw around claims like what did she expect.

Seems some think that any woman at a party is a free go for any guy

The Great Aukster wrote:Ulster and the IRFU do not come out of this well.

Allegedly the bibulous and licentious behaviour of the acquitted was neither unique nor unknown. It is hypocritical of the IRFU and Ulster to now call for a review, having ignored it previously. If rules have been broken in the past then why wasn't the review carried out before now? Enforcing rules depending on the strength of the media voice shows no backbone and is neither serving rugby nor those who play it.

The IRFU have fuelled the media frenzy by denying Ulster the expedient route of re-signing Pienaar, thus leaving the province with no recognised outhalf. Stupidly Ulster made no contingency by developing McPhillips last season, preferring to cry 'poor me' to the media and scouring the globe to hide their mistake. All of which clearly poured pertrol on the fires of indignation lit on social media, to roast the accused.

The players will undoubtedly be hung out to dry for their perceived idiotic behaviour, by the very organisations that have acted idiotically by condoning such idiocy.

So the IRFU should sack the management in Ulster for allowing that carryon to continue? For the record, I think that Ulster/IRFU said before the trial that they would be carrying out this enquiry/tribunal after the trial.

marty2086 wrote:Seems some think that any woman at a party is a free go for any guy

Are you for real ? Or is this just you being you again and just going against what I have said because you like arguing ?

At no point did I say this.

And also, it looks as though you have commented about this without knowing anything about the trial except for a few guys being accused of r***.

I suggest you peruse the findings of the trial before you pass comments like that.

I encourage my daughters to go out and socialise, I give them their money to do it. If they go back to a party with some people then fine. But if my daughter did what was proved happened that night then I would be absolutely horrified.

RDW_Scotland wrote:LD - I'm no parent but if I was and it was my daughter there's no way I would 'wipe the floor' with her after going through this kind of event. Whatever happened there's no doubting this will have had a huge effect on her and she will have many psychological scars from it. The court case will have been traumatic as well, with her intimate details dissected in minute detail, her clothes paraded in the court and no doubt her character called into question by the prosecution.

This girl needs love and family support – not punishment. There have been false r*** accusations in the past but I don’t see it with this one, and I think the calls to trial her for it (and the defence lawyer’s suggesting that she only brought it up because he was an Ulster player) was way OTT.  You’re making this a black and white case but there are many shades of grey here.

This is pretty spot on for me, the men thinking there was consent doesn't mean there was. None of us are 19 yo girls who think that two athletic guys who are bigger than us have some sort of power and protection and will probably never know the level of fear and intimidation that a woman would feel in that situation and how powerless they might feel.

I've read people berating the girl for inconsistencies in her story but trauma messes with your head and you remember things that didn't happen or forget things that didn't. When you think people won't believe you, people can embellish or lie through fear while still telling the truth.

The same goes for the accused and their inconsistencies, if you think your world is falling apart, try thinking clearly.

neilthom7 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:Thats a fair point Sin however i'm not sure it was them with those messages.  I think i might have read somewhere that it was the others who had wrote disgusting messages but not jackson and olding. I could be wrong though.
What i am trying to say is i would not presume  all women will turn against ulster because of this.  The evidence i have seen so far from women i know would suggest that would not be the case.

FFS, they were spit roasting a teenager. Concensual or not, that is a long way from family values. The chief executive of Bank of Ireland lost his job for looking at porn at work a few years ago.

Key Phrase in that sentence is 'at work' I doubt he would have if he had done it at home.
It is a long way from family values for sure however I did not say it wasn't what I said is you cannot generalise and say all women will turn away from Ulster rugby because frankly given the women who have talked to me about it and a couple of others who i know who have posted on facebook since my last post none of them have turned there back on Ulster rugby, in fact the ones who actually support Ulster Rugby have been calling for them to be back in the team.
I'm not saying every person feels that way, clearly there will be a lot who don't but given all the women I have talked to or posted to social media feel that way it is not likely they are alone.

He was the CEO of Bank of Ireland (i.e., the most senior person in the company). Can you explain why the CEO of a company wouldn't be allowed look at porn at work? Would he have been sacked for posting on 606v2? Why do you think it was a sackable offence?

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Seems some think that any woman at a party is a free go for any guy

Are you for real ? Or is this just you being you again and just going against what I have said because you like arguing ?

At no point did I say this.

And also, it looks as though you have commented about this without knowing anything about the trial except for a few guys being accused of r***.

I suggest you peruse the findings of the trial before you pass comments like that.

I encourage my daughters to go out and socialise, I give them their money to do it. If they go back to a party with some people then fine. But if my daughter did what was proved happened that night then I would be absolutely horrified.

No just pointing out your continued idiocy

'This girl was not drugged, she was not man handled into a car and forcibly taken to the residence, she got drunk and went back there, what did she think was happening ? A game of scrabble ?'

Are you serious? Because the only reason to go back to a house party is sex? That a woman merely being present is consent?

The findings of the trial are there wasn't enough evidence to prove their guilt, nothing more and nothing less so maybe before trying to educate me on it all you might want to get a clue yourself

Jesus. I've seen plenty of people going back to houses for a drink at the end of a night out. They shouldn't be seen as placing themselves in danger or asking for it. Similar to the past accusations of r*** victims dressing in a way which means men have no control.over their actions. Having read some.of the evidence I'm surprised at the verdict. Given the verdict they need to be allowed back into the fold but don't be surprised if their careers take a bit of a nose dive.

George Carlin wrote:This is getting away from rugby discussions into something else which I don't like.
I don't think from the posts above that anyone is mandating anything in terms of behaviour towards women so let's just leave it there please.

' what did she think was happening ? A game of scrabble'

Seriously?

LordDowlais wrote:hi Clive,

It is just typical of the times we live in. These boys are guilty, but not guilty of r...

What they are guilty of, is being idiots. You could imagine them on a night out thinking they are the bees knees, acting up like knobs, but you cannot jail them for that. I would like to think that this has brought them down a few pegs, and put their ego's back in check.

For me though, the girl is just as guilty as them.

So, what would you think of this then. I have a young relative who while living in college rooms was raped. The circumstances were that the r***ist (a friend of her boyfriend who she was also friend with). She had invited him to her room to watch a movie and he obviously came to the conclusion that she had invited him for something else. Maybe she was foolish to have invited him into her room, but i think you are wrong when you put the whole onus of responsibility on the woman not to give out misleading signals.

By the way, 4 years later and she still hasn't recovered. She didn't do well in her final exams, she has split up with her boyfriend and has more or less become a recluse, rarely going out, althought she has had counselling and is on anti-depresants. And some people like you think its up to a teenager not to get themselves into a situation like that.

That's terrible sin. Slow process of recovery hope she gets there soon.

RDW_Scotland wrote:LD - I'm no parent but if I was and it was my daughter there's no way I would 'wipe the floor' with her after going through this kind of event. Whatever happened there's no doubting this will have had a huge effect on her and she will have many psychological scars from it. The court case will have been traumatic as well, with her intimate details dissected in minute detail, her clothes paraded in the court and no doubt her character called into question by the prosecution.

This girl needs love and family support – not punishment. There have been false r*** accusations in the past but I don’t see it with this one, and I think the calls to trial her for it (and the defence lawyer’s suggesting that she only brought it up because he was an Ulster player) was way OTT.  You’re making this a black and white case but there are many shades of grey here.

Couple of points.

Firstly the defence lawyer was clearly saying the decision to prosecute was based on the mens standing. That decision is taken by the PPS not the complainant so he was attacking them not the accuser.

Secondly you are giving the girl the girl the benefit of the doubt in terms of her motives which i agree with but unfortunately i dont think the accused are getting the same deal. The second point isnt a dig at you but just more a comment.

marty2086 wrote:Going back to a house doesn't mean consent, she may well have been some star struck teenager who saw an opportunity to party with people she saw as celebs, we don't know but going back to a house to a party doesn't mean a woman is looking for sex. I've been to parties like that and I've seen women there not looking for sex, just to enjoy life.

I also know a woman who's gone back to a party like that and been drugged and attacked sexually and she believes she is to blame for it still, so really don't appreciate it when people throw around claims like what did she expect.

Seems some think that any woman at a party is a free go for any guy  

So close to making a good argument that had me questioning myself. In fact you have. But then, like so many reactionary folk online, you go overboard and suggest I said something I did not.

I think all of us could do with reigning it in a little.

In fairness, you are right, she could just have been innocently looking to make friends by going to the party. I was wrong to suggest otherwise.

But the going upstairs bit... not so sure. Like I said, by her own account, she followed uninvited. Still, doesn't amount to consent of course.

Yea, think I've said enough. I'm going to take my own advice and reign it in and keep quiet for a while...

marty2086 wrote:Going back to a house doesn't mean consent, she may well have been some star struck teenager who saw an opportunity to party with people she saw as celebs, we don't know but going back to a house to a party doesn't mean a woman is looking for sex. I've been to parties like that and I've seen women there not looking for sex, just to enjoy life.

I also know a woman who's gone back to a party like that and been drugged and attacked sexually and she believes she is to blame for it still, so really don't appreciate it when people throw around claims like what did she expect.

Seems some think that any woman at a party is a free go for any guy  

Exactly.

No 7&1/2 wrote:That's terrible sin. Slow process of recovery hope she gets there soon.

Victims don't recover, that's the thing, they may some day get a semblance of normality but it's still there haunting them daily. You see it with people who get burgled too, especially the elderly

marty2086 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:LD - I'm no parent but if I was and it was my daughter there's no way I would 'wipe the floor' with her after going through this kind of event. Whatever happened there's no doubting this will have had a huge effect on her and she will have many psychological scars from it. The court case will have been traumatic as well, with her intimate details dissected in minute detail, her clothes paraded in the court and no doubt her character called into question by the prosecution.

This girl needs love and family support – not punishment. There have been false r*** accusations in the past but I don’t see it with this one, and I think the calls to trial her for it (and the defence lawyer’s suggesting that she only brought it up because he was an Ulster player) was way OTT.  You’re making this a black and white case but there are many shades of grey here.

This is pretty spot on for me, the men thinking there was consent doesn't mean there was. None of us are 19 yo girls who think that two athletic guys who are bigger than us have some sort of power and protection and will probably never know the level of fear and intimidation that a woman would feel in that situation and how powerless they might feel.

I've read people berating the girl for inconsistencies in her story but trauma messes with your head and you remember things that didn't happen or forget things that didn't. When you think people won't believe you, people can embellish or lie through fear while still telling the truth.

The same goes for the accused and their inconsistencies, if you think your world is falling apart, try thinking clearly.  

I absolutely agree the girl should not be hung out to dry by friends and family but supported.
But while we are talking about trauma and anguish, do you think this was easy for teh accused and their families?
Her underwear was shown in courtroom. OK. The boys I would argue have faced much much worse in the public eye having been found not guilty.
Any sympathy for them, with their careers, reputation and social lives in tatters yet criminally found to have done no wrong?

As with everything marty you'll never get everyone reacting the same way.

clivemcl wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Going back to a house doesn't mean consent, she may well have been some star struck teenager who saw an opportunity to party with people she saw as celebs, we don't know but going back to a house to a party doesn't mean a woman is looking for sex. I've been to parties like that and I've seen women there not looking for sex, just to enjoy life.

I also know a woman who's gone back to a party like that and been drugged and attacked sexually and she believes she is to blame for it still, so really don't appreciate it when people throw around claims like what did she expect.

Seems some think that any woman at a party is a free go for any guy  

So close to making a good argument that had me questioning myself. In fact you have. But then, like so many reactionary folk online, you go overboard and suggest I said something I did not.

I think all of us could do with reigning it in a little.

In fairness, you are right, she could just have been innocently looking to make friends by going to the party. I was wrong to suggest otherwise.

But the going upstairs bit... not so sure. Like I said, by her own account, she followed uninvited. Still, doesn't amount to consent of course.

Yea, think I've said enough. I'm going to take my own advice and reign it in and keep quiet for a while...

Her account was that she went upstairs to get her bag to go home and PJ followed her up.

clivemcl wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

RDW_Scotland wrote:LD - I'm no parent but if I was and it was my daughter there's no way I would 'wipe the floor' with her after going through this kind of event. Whatever happened there's no doubting this will have had a huge effect on her and she will have many psychological scars from it. The court case will have been traumatic as well, with her intimate details dissected in minute detail, her clothes paraded in the court and no doubt her character called into question by the prosecution.

This girl needs love and family support – not punishment. There have been false r*** accusations in the past but I don’t see it with this one, and I think the calls to trial her for it (and the defence lawyer’s suggesting that she only brought it up because he was an Ulster player) was way OTT.  You’re making this a black and white case but there are many shades of grey here.

This is pretty spot on for me, the men thinking there was consent doesn't mean there was. None of us are 19 yo girls who think that two athletic guys who are bigger than us have some sort of power and protection and will probably never know the level of fear and intimidation that a woman would feel in that situation and how powerless they might feel.

I've read people berating the girl for inconsistencies in her story but trauma messes with your head and you remember things that didn't happen or forget things that didn't. When you think people won't believe you, people can embellish or lie through fear while still telling the truth.

The same goes for the accused and their inconsistencies, if you think your world is falling apart, try thinking clearly.  

I absolutely agree the girl should not be hung out to dry by friends and family but supported.
But while we are talking about trauma and anguish, do you think this was easy for teh accused and their families?
Her underwear was shown in courtroom. OK. The boys I would argue have faced much much worse in the public eye having been found not guilty.
Any sympathy for them, with their careers, reputation and social lives in tatters yet criminally found to have done no wrong?

Of course I've sympathy but from what I've heard their social lives are doing just fine at the minute.
The way men and women on both sides of it all are getting on regarding the whole thing is infuriating, as if they were there and know for a fact what happened. The silent protests that are being arranged 'in solidarity' are provocative and I think likely to pop up at Ravenhill sometime soon

And (according to Greaney) they raised doubt about her account from a selfie that looked as though her purse was downstairs with her prior to her going upstairs the second time.

Standulstermen wrote:And (according to Greaney) they raised doubt about her account from a selfie that looked as though her purse was downstairs with her prior to her going upstairs the second time.

Doubts are doubts - not fact. Bearing in mind the amount of drink taken by all, it wouldn't be surprising if you didn't know where you were, let alone where you left your phone/bag etc.

I dont doubt that Sin. Im merely saying those found not guilty are under the same presumption of innocence as you or I and should be afforded the benefit of any doubt, same as the accuser

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

neilthom7 wrote:Thats a fair point Sin however i'm not sure it was them with those messages.  I think i might have read somewhere that it was the others who had wrote disgusting messages but not jackson and olding. I could be wrong though.
What i am trying to say is i would not presume  all women will turn against ulster because of this.  The evidence i have seen so far from women i know would suggest that would not be the case.

FFS, they were spit roasting a teenager. Concensual or not, that is a long way from family values. The chief executive of Bank of Ireland lost his job for looking at porn at work a few years ago.

Looking at porn in work isn't the same as a consensual act in the privacy of your own home

Having a threesome isn't illegal nor immoral IMO. If everyone is on-board with it what's the issue? Its 2018 FFS.

Unfortunately certain members have just used my view on this as another opportunity to try and stick the boot into me, without even taking time to consider anything I have said.

It's a shame, but it's why I do not come on here as often. The are spoiling this place.

Just for the record, I am not condoning the boys behaviour, far from it. But I do not think they did what they are being accused of either. That's because I have read a lot about this case, and there are too many things that just do not add up.

LordDowlais wrote:Look, I cannot understand some people on here. Perhaps this topic needs a thread of it's own as to not take over this Ulster thread.

But, I have a teenage daughter, she is 17, I would be absolutely horrified and downright disappointed if my daughter let herself get into that situation. I have brought my daughter, and her sister up with morals.

This girl was not drugged, she was not man handled into a car and forcibly taken to the residence, she got drunk and went back there, what did she think was happening ? A game of scrabble ?

17 is a bit young but I don't see why women shouldn't be allowed express themselves sexually in whatever way they see fit without people judging them.

I'd love to get back to discussing where the boys stand with UR and IRFU.

The court case stuff is beginning to infuriate me.

Look, if she was raped, that is absolutely horrendous. 100%.

But, we simply cannot put people in prison without evidence. It is what it is. And I'm glad it is so tight.

Any idea how many people were exonerated when the forensic technology was developed? A lot. They had lost large parts of their lives to wrongful imprisonment, and some poor souls were sentenced to death in the states and forensic technology later revealed they were not guilty.

Some may feel from the little info that has filtered through to them that the girl is telling the truth, but I for one am thankful that people in this country aren't thrown in prison unless we are sure.

It's just a pity we can't deliver 'not guilty' people the full immunisation from the non-judicial punishment they will face by those who sit in judgement over them in their work and social lives till the day they die.

If any of you are not following my comments closely from the beginning, might I also remind you that I think the boys are idiots, and that I find their choice of words disgusting, and morally I disapprove of multiple partners and excessive alcohol.

But I do believe in our judicial system and I respect the verdict of a jury.

Can we all maybe respect the judicial system and agree not to imprison folk without evidence and now get back to discussing the IRFU and URs position on the lads extra curricular activity and probably breach of contract?

LordDowlais wrote:Unfortunately certain members have just used my view on this as another opportunity to try and stick the boot into me, without even taking time to consider anything I have said.

It's a shame, but it's why I do not come on here as often. The are spoiling this place.

Just for the record, I am not condoning the boys behaviour, far from it. But I do not think they did what they are being accused of either. That's because I have read a lot about this case, and there are too many things that just do not add up.

I agree although I accept that its pretty hard to conclude with any certainty exactly what happened without being there.

Sin é wrote:Doubts are doubts - not fact. Bearing in mind the amount of drink taken by all, it wouldn't be surprising if you didn't know where you were, let alone where you left your phone/bag etc.

And this is what I am getting at. Both parties allowed themselves to get into that situation, I would be very upset if my daughter got herself into that state and she lost all her inhibitions, I have brought her up better than that. They are all as guilty as each other in my book.

clivemcl wrote:I'd love to get back to discussing where the boys stand with UR and IRFU.

The court case stuff is beginning to infuriate me.

Look, if she was raped, that is absolutely horrendous. 100%.

But, we simply cannot put people in prison without evidence. It is what it is. And I'm glad it is so tight.

Any idea how many people were exonerated when the forensic technology was developed? A lot. They had lost large parts of their lives to wrongful imprisonment, and some poor souls were sentenced to death in the states and forensic technology later revealed they were not guilty.

Some may feel from the little info that has filtered through to them that the girl is telling the truth, but I for one am thankful that people in this country aren't thrown in prison unless we are sure.

It's just a pity we can't deliver 'not guilty' people the full immunisation from the non-judicial punishment they will face by those who sit in judgement over them in their work and social lives till the day they die.

If any of you are not following my comments closely from the beginning, might I also remind you that I think the boys are idiots, and that I find their choice of words disgusting, and morally I disapprove of multiple partners and excessive alcohol.

But I do believe in our judicial system and I respect the verdict of a jury.

Can we all maybe respect the judicial system and agree not to imprison folk without evidence and now get back to discussing the IRFU and URs position on the lads extra curricular activity and probably breach of contract?

Thank you clive, at least somebody sees this the same way as I do, and are not just here to use this as an agenda against me.

Again. Thank you.

LordDowlais wrote:Unfortunately certain members have just used my view on this as another opportunity to try and stick the boot into me, without even taking time to consider anything I have said.

It's a shame, but it's why I do not come on here as often. The are spoiling this place.

Just for the record, I am not condoning the boys behaviour, far from it. But I do not think they did what they are being accused of either. That's because I have read a lot about this case, and there are too many things that just do not add up.

If you say something like what did she think was happening a game of scrabble? Yes, stupid sh!t like that will be called out so maybe self edit better and engage your brain and don't say it or don't cry about getting called out for it and blame others for doing it

Well clearly if a man wearing a rolex is mugged he's equally as guilty as the mugger. Bear that is mind when you're negotiating your next phone contract.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well clearly if a man wearing a rolex is mugged he's equally as guilty as the mugger.

What would he expect to happen after all

You may morally disapprove of multiple partners and excessive alcohol
Some people morally disapprove of homosexuality.
Some people morally disapprove of games on a Sunday

Why should what people morally disapprove of have an effect. Surly what is legal and illegal should have far more sway.

You may morally disapprove of thier lifestyle choice but its theirs to choose and they are free to have multiple and shared partners. Its not your buiness to judge that anymore than if it was their choice to sleep with men.

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:Doubts are doubts - not fact. Bearing in mind the amount of drink taken by all, it wouldn't be surprising if you didn't know where you were, let alone where you left your phone/bag etc.

And this is what I am getting at. Both parties allowed themselves to get into that situation, I would be very upset if my daughter got herself into that state and she lost all her inhibitions, I have brought her up better than that. They are all as guilty as each other in my book.

The lads had about 10 times more than she did. You can't get away from the fact that she was in a terrible state leaving the house and the taxi driver noticed that she was bleeding.

LordDowlais wrote:

clivemcl wrote:I'd love to get back to discussing where the boys stand with UR and IRFU.

The court case stuff is beginning to infuriate me.

Look, if she was raped, that is absolutely horrendous. 100%.

But, we simply cannot put people in prison without evidence. It is what it is. And I'm glad it is so tight.

Any idea how many people were exonerated when the forensic technology was developed? A lot. They had lost large parts of their lives to wrongful imprisonment, and some poor souls were sentenced to death in the states and forensic technology later revealed they were not guilty.

Some may feel from the little info that has filtered through to them that the girl is telling the truth, but I for one am thankful that people in this country aren't thrown in prison unless we are sure.

It's just a pity we can't deliver 'not guilty' people the full immunisation from the non-judicial punishment they will face by those who sit in judgement over them in their work and social lives till the day they die.

If any of you are not following my comments closely from the beginning, might I also remind you that I think the boys are idiots, and that I find their choice of words disgusting, and morally I disapprove of multiple partners and excessive alcohol.

But I do believe in our judicial system and I respect the verdict of a jury.

Can we all maybe respect the judicial system and agree not to imprison folk without evidence and now get back to discussing the IRFU and URs position on the lads extra curricular activity and probably breach of contract?

Thank you clive, at least somebody sees this the same way as I do, and are not just here to use this as an agenda against me.

Again. Thank you.

The jury situation wasn't perfect - 8 men and 3 women.
Huge question marks over the system - I wouldn't be lauding it as being great. For instance in the ROI, in cases such as these, the hearing is heard in camera.

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:Doubts are doubts - not fact. Bearing in mind the amount of drink taken by all, it wouldn't be surprising if you didn't know where you were, let alone where you left your phone/bag etc.

And this is what I am getting at. Both parties allowed themselves to get into that situation, I would be very upset if my daughter got herself into that state and she lost all her inhibitions, I have brought her up better than that. They are all as guilty as each other in my book.

The lads had about 10 times more than she did. You can't get away from the fact that she was in a terrible state leaving the house and the taxi driver noticed that she was bleeding.

I may have missed this bit, but don't remember that.
I remember the taxi driver saying she was sobbing.
There are many reasons to sob though. Maybe she asked for their numbers to stay in touch and they laughed. Could be anything.

The jury got the evidence from front row seats. Respect the system.

marty2086 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Well clearly if a man wearing a rolex is mugged he's equally as guilty as the mugger.

What would he expect to happen after all

Have any of you two actually read what has happened ? Or are you two the judge, the jury and the executioner all in one ?

clivemcl wrote:

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:Doubts are doubts - not fact. Bearing in mind the amount of drink taken by all, it wouldn't be surprising if you didn't know where you were, let alone where you left your phone/bag etc.

And this is what I am getting at. Both parties allowed themselves to get into that situation, I would be very upset if my daughter got herself into that state and she lost all her inhibitions, I have brought her up better than that. They are all as guilty as each other in my book.

The lads had about 10 times more than she did. You can't get away from the fact that she was in a terrible state leaving the house and the taxi driver noticed that she was bleeding.

I may have missed this bit, but don't remember that.
I remember the taxi driver saying she was sobbing.
There are many reasons to sob though. Maybe she asked for their numbers to stay in touch and they laughed. Could be anything.

The jury got the evidence from front row seats. Respect the system.

Not once have I read she was bleeding. Crying yes, bleeding no.

clivemcl wrote:

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:Doubts are doubts - not fact. Bearing in mind the amount of drink taken by all, it wouldn't be surprising if you didn't know where you were, let alone where you left your phone/bag etc.

And this is what I am getting at. Both parties allowed themselves to get into that situation, I would be very upset if my daughter got herself into that state and she lost all her inhibitions, I have brought her up better than that. They are all as guilty as each other in my book.

The lads had about 10 times more than she did. You can't get away from the fact that she was in a terrible state leaving the house and the taxi driver noticed that she was bleeding.

I may have missed this bit, but don't remember that.
I remember the taxi driver saying she was sobbing.
There are many reasons to sob though. Maybe she asked for their numbers to stay in touch and they laughed. Could be anything.

The jury got the evidence from front row seats. Respect the system.

They didn't get it all because some of the texts were deleted for some reason.

Sin é wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:Doubts are doubts - not fact. Bearing in mind the amount of drink taken by all, it wouldn't be surprising if you didn't know where you were, let alone where you left your phone/bag etc.

And this is what I am getting at. Both parties allowed themselves to get into that situation, I would be very upset if my daughter got herself into that state and she lost all her inhibitions, I have brought her up better than that. They are all as guilty as each other in my book.

The lads had about 10 times more than she did. You can't get away from the fact that she was in a terrible state leaving the house and the taxi driver noticed that she was bleeding.

I may have missed this bit, but don't remember that.
I remember the taxi driver saying she was sobbing.
There are many reasons to sob though. Maybe she asked for their numbers to stay in touch and they laughed. Could be anything.

The jury got the evidence from front row seats. Respect the system.

They didn't get it all because some of the texts were deleted for some reason.

Ah yea right enough Sin, chuck them in prison sure, just in case.

I've read a good deal of it though not everything. You'd agree though that guy with the rolex is equally as guilty. He shouldn't be tempting other people.

Sarcasm smiley by the way.

You boys can dance around it all you want. Answer me. Should we imprison people if we can't be sure they are guilty?

Or do you just want to keep cycling through a jury selection until you find the 12 who will interpret the evidence presented in the way you approve of?

Respect the judicial system.

Sin é wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:Doubts are doubts - not fact. Bearing in mind the amount of drink taken by all, it wouldn't be surprising if you didn't know where you were, let alone where you left your phone/bag etc.

And this is what I am getting at. Both parties allowed themselves to get into that situation, I would be very upset if my daughter got herself into that state and she lost all her inhibitions, I have brought her up better than that. They are all as guilty as each other in my book.

The lads had about 10 times more than she did. You can't get away from the fact that she was in a terrible state leaving the house and the taxi driver noticed that she was bleeding.

I may have missed this bit, but don't remember that.
I remember the taxi driver saying she was sobbing.
There are many reasons to sob though. Maybe she asked for their numbers to stay in touch and they laughed. Could be anything.

The jury got the evidence from front row seats. Respect the system.

They didn't get it all because some of the texts were deleted for some reason.

Deleted texts can still be recovered though can't they ? Or have I been watching too tele ?

LordDowlais wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:Doubts are doubts - not fact. Bearing in mind the amount of drink taken by all, it wouldn't be surprising if you didn't know where you were, let alone where you left your phone/bag etc.

And this is what I am getting at. Both parties allowed themselves to get into that situation, I would be very upset if my daughter got herself into that state and she lost all her inhibitions, I have brought her up better than that. They are all as guilty as each other in my book.

The lads had about 10 times more than she did. You can't get away from the fact that she was in a terrible state leaving the house and the taxi driver noticed that she was bleeding.

I may have missed this bit, but don't remember that.
I remember the taxi driver saying she was sobbing.
There are many reasons to sob though. Maybe she asked for their numbers to stay in touch and they laughed. Could be anything.

The jury got the evidence from front row seats. Respect the system.

Not once have I read she was bleeding. Crying yes, bleeding no.

Sorry, she wasn't bleeding, but the taxi driver noticed her trousers were bloodstained.

clivemcl wrote:You boys can dance around it all you want. Answer me. Should we imprison people if we can't be sure they are guilty?

Or do you just want to keep cycling through a jury selection until you find the 12 who will interpret the evidence presented in the way you approve of?

Respect the judicial system.

Well said that man.

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:

clivemcl wrote:

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:Doubts are doubts - not fact. Bearing in mind the amount of drink taken by all, it wouldn't be surprising if you didn't know where you were, let alone where you left your phone/bag etc.

And this is what I am getting at. Both parties allowed themselves to get into that situation, I would be very upset if my daughter got herself into that state and she lost all her inhibitions, I have brought her up better than that. They are all as guilty as each other in my book.

The lads had about 10 times more than she did. You can't get away from the fact that she was in a terrible state leaving the house and the taxi driver noticed that she was bleeding.

I may have missed this bit, but don't remember that.
I remember the taxi driver saying she was sobbing.
There are many reasons to sob though. Maybe she asked for their numbers to stay in touch and they laughed. Could be anything.

The jury got the evidence from front row seats. Respect the system.

They didn't get it all because some of the texts were deleted for some reason.

Deleted texts can still be recovered though can't they ? Or have I been watching too tele ?

They were not able to recover them all.