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

Sin é wrote:

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.

See, you have misread something and convicted them because of it. See how easy it is ?

No Clive you can't jail people found not guilty. There's a fair few questions on this though as there normally is. A process is not guaranteed to bring the correct result. They'll return to their clubs. As they should. I personally think they've got away with it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I personally think they've got away with it.

Got away with what exactly ?

Yes you misread it as she definitely had been bleeding and may still have been bleeding.

Sin é wrote:

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.

That's total garbage Sin. A unanimous decision was required. If the three women or anyone for that matter felt strongly that the guys were guilty deliberation would have taken much more than just 3 hours.

Men are also just as capable as women to spot a crime when they see one.

The judge was also a woman.

r*** ld.

No 7&1/2 wrote:r*** ld.

Based on what?

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.

No, we should not imprison them. But don't laud the system as being perfect because its not in 'he said, she said' cases. The jury was 8 men and 3 women. Thats not balanced in a case like this. In cases like this, it might be better to use a different system (a system of legally trained people). I saw a stat yesterday that was very telling. Something like only 9 cases in 1000 prosecutions for r*** are successful. There is something wrong with that.

Sin é wrote:

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.

No, we should not imprison them. But don't laud the system as being perfect because its not in 'he said, she said' cases. The jury was 8 men and 3 women. Thats not balanced in a case like this. In cases like this, it might be better to use a different system (a system of legally trained people). I saw a stat yesterday that was very telling. Something like only 9 cases in 1000 prosecutions for r*** are successful. There is something wrong with that.

The judge was a woman. Should they have appointed a tranny just in case?

Collapse2005 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

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.

That's total garbage Sin. A unanimous decision was required. If the three women or anyone for that matter felt strongly that the guys were guilty deliberation would have taken much more than just 3 hours.

Men are also just as capable as women to spot a crime when they see one.

The judge was also a woman.

Judging by the number of men I've seen posting 'I Believe Her' I think its ridiculous of you to claim the jury mix played a role. Unless you are claiming most men have a tendency to help men 'get away' with r***. While only Women will be fair. And these three women were cohersed by the men?

Catch a grip mate.

No 7&1/2 wrote:r*** ld.

So you have read all the evidence and come to this conclusion ?

Thank god you are not a judge or a barrister.

For the record I could not say either way, but I trust in our judicial system, and I trust that it was investigated to it's utmost, and I trust that all the jury were honest in their findings. Just because they were mostly men does not count for nowt.

Sin é wrote:

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.

No, we should not imprison them. But don't laud the system as being perfect because its not in 'he said, she said' cases. The jury was 8 men and 3 women. Thats not balanced in a case like this. In cases like this, it might be better to use a different system (a system of legally trained people). I saw a stat yesterday that was very telling. Something like only 9 cases in 1000 prosecutions for r*** are successful. There is something wrong with that.

Yea and most of them didn't have any eye witnesses (of the same sex and lack of relationship to the defendants) or half the evidence that this trial had.

There are many crimes with a similarly poor success rate. But evidence is necessary otherwise we falsely imprison people.

I think there are too many people who want these boys to be made an example of, well just because of who they are.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

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.

That's total garbage Sin. A unanimous decision was required. If the three women or anyone for that matter felt strongly that the guys were guilty deliberation would have taken much more than just 3 hours.

Men are also just as capable as women to spot a crime when they see one.

The judge was also a woman.

In a situation like this, men and women are coming from different places and different values. For the record, I don't think 8 women and 3 men either would work. You should also remember what the jury were asked to decide on - is there any doubt that they are guilty - without any factual evidence, of course there is going to be doubt.

And anyway, after 9 weeks of a trial, most jurors would just want to get out of there.

In my experience a lot of men are equally prone to overly emotional responses to r*** or potential r*** due to being fathers or brothers etc.

I don't think the make up of the jury is that relevant. No more relevant to the gender of the judge who specifically directs the jury on how to formulate their decision.

I have sat on a jury and yes you want to get out but you also feel a strong sense of obligation to arrive at the right decision.

Based on what I've read collapse.

I don't have complete faith in the process ld. And you've read enough to ignore she had been bleeding and she was as guilty as them so don't put yourself down.

A couple of points.

The girl is reported to have said in text messages that her period had started. This was confirmed in medical evidence.

The problem folk seem to be having with what LD said seems to be because they believe that there was no consent.

I suspect LD is taking the same view as the jury, that there was consent and then regret.

I don't think he is saying that the behaviour of the girl removed the need for consent.

I think he means he would be disappointed if his children put themselves in a position where they took part in activity which they later regretted.

clivemcl wrote:

Sin é wrote:

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.

No, we should not imprison them. But don't laud the system as being perfect because its not in 'he said, she said' cases. The jury was 8 men and 3 women. Thats not balanced in a case like this. In cases like this, it might be better to use a different system (a system of legally trained people). I saw a stat yesterday that was very telling. Something like only 9 cases in 1000 prosecutions for r*** are successful. There is something wrong with that.

Yea and most of them didn't have any eye witnesses (of the same sex and lack of relationship to the defendants) or half the evidence that this trial had.

There are many crimes with a similarly poor success rate. But evidence is necessary otherwise we falsely imprison people.

Here is a comment on the system by a legal expert (writing on behalf of the r*** Crisis Centre). One of the criticisms they have of the system is that the complainant has no legal representation, so the defence lawyers could rip her to bits. She is also critical of the NI system - in the ROI, neither the complainant nor the accused is named until the trial is over, with the public being excluded from the trial.

http://www.thejournal.ie/readme/ulster-rugby-r***-trial-concerns-dublin-r***-crisis-centre-3928771-Mar2018/

No 7&1/2 wrote:Based on what I've read collapse.

I don't have complete faith in the process ld. And you've read enough to ignore she had been bleeding and she was as guilty as them so don't put yourself down.

A forensic r&&& expert cast a lot of doubt around the blood story during the trial. Doubt was a fairly constant theme which is why I am not surprised the jury came to the conclusion they did.

Collapse2005 wrote:In my experience a lot of men are equally prone to overly emotional responses to r*** or potential r*** due to being fathers or brothers etc.

I don't think the make up of the jury is that relevant. No more relevant to the gender of the judge who specifically directs the jury on how to formulate their decision.

I have sat on a jury and yes you want to get out but you also feel a strong sense of obligation to arrive at the right decision.

I'd agree with you about fathers, brothers etc, and I wouldn't blame the jury for the verdict because of what they are asked to do. If they have reasonable doubt, they have to state so. From that article from the r*** Crisis Centre.

The case also showed that when consent is contested, both sides are fighting for a ‘win’. For the defendants, they win if they can convince the jury that there is an element of doubt in the woman’s story. For the prosecution to win, the woman’s evidence – and the police and medical evidence – must be believed by the jury. The defendants can only be found guilty if the State proves its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

One more thing... if UR/IRFU take no notice of the verdict but instead take action based upon their behaviour, namely their messages and choice of words....

Well then is CG included in the same disciplinary process? Or does the fact only initials were used somehow mean he escapes a similar fate?

Lets' remember that the prosecution forced Olding to state that CG is in 'the team' along with them.

If anyone wants me to dig up what CG said in the Whatsapp group I can. But he has said as much if not worse than Olding and Jackson said.

The trial made it obvious CG is a fellow player. I'm not going to say, but it's pretty damned obvious to any Ulster supporter who the other person is so how do they survive the bringing UR into disrepute argument?

I don't doubt it collapse. To restate my position. They've been found not guilty they should be allowed to get on with their lives and I think they did it. The law is not infallible.

I do feel somewhat sorry for the victim as I do believe that she believed that something bad happened to her but I get the sense from what she said she had a fairly immature understanding of what r*** actually is where in her version the lines between regret and non-consent are more blurred than legal president. At least that's how it came across from her testimony.

MrsP wrote:A couple of points.

The girl is reported to have said in text messages that her period had started. This was confirmed in medical evidence.

The problem folk seem to be having with what LD said seems to be because they believe that there was no consent.

I suspect LD is taking the same view as the jury, that there was consent and then regret.

I don't think he is saying that the behaviour of the girl removed the need for consent.

I think he means he would be disappointed if his children put themselves in a position where they took part in activity which they later regretted.

Yes, thank you MrsP. Thank you so much. I really appreciate that you can understand what I am saying, and that you can even take the time to explain why on here.

I really appreciate that comment I really do, thank you. Honestly, thank you.

Anyone want to give me their take on this?

If the UR/IRFU take action based not on trial but on their conduct, does fellow team player CG get reprimanded similarly?

Does the use of initials save him even though it's blatantly obvious?

clivemcl wrote:Anyone want to give me their take on this?

If the UR/IRFU take action based not on trial but on their conduct, does fellow team player CG get reprimanded similarly?

Does the use of initials save him even though it's blatantly obvious?

Well, they cannot punish anybody due to the trial, because they were found not guilty. But his behaviour in this whole sordid affair was no different to those accused, so in my eyes, he should get the same punishment off UR/IRFU as the others.

Also, anybody arguing that the boys are guilty no matter what the court has said could not disagree with me on this either.

clivemcl wrote:One more thing... if UR/IRFU take no notice of the verdict but instead take action based upon their behaviour, namely their messages and choice of words....

Well then is CG included in the same disciplinary process? Or does the fact only initials were used somehow mean he escapes a similar fate?

Lets' remember that the prosecution forced Olding to state that CG is in 'the team' along with them.

If anyone wants me to dig up what CG said in the Whatsapp group I can. But he has said as much if not worse than Olding and Jackson said.

The trial made it obvious CG is a fellow player. I'm not going to say, but it's pretty damned obvious to any Ulster supporter who the other person is so how do they survive the bringing UR into disrepute argument?

A major culture change is required in Ulster. Its really such a place of extremes between the prayer meeting part of the squad and the hedonists. No wonder the team isn't functioning well.

I saw that facebook think on Roger Wilson earlier - is that true?

Sin é wrote:

clivemcl wrote:One more thing... if UR/IRFU take no notice of the verdict but instead take action based upon their behaviour, namely their messages and choice of words....

Well then is CG included in the same disciplinary process? Or does the fact only initials were used somehow mean he escapes a similar fate?

Lets' remember that the prosecution forced Olding to state that CG is in 'the team' along with them.

If anyone wants me to dig up what CG said in the Whatsapp group I can. But he has said as much if not worse than Olding and Jackson said.

The trial made it obvious CG is a fellow player. I'm not going to say, but it's pretty damned obvious to any Ulster supporter who the other person is so how do they survive the bringing UR into disrepute argument?

A major culture change is required in Ulster. Its really such a place of extremes between the prayer meeting part of the squad and the hedonists. No wonder the team isn't functioning well.

I saw that facebook think on Roger Wilson earlier - is that true?

Ulster, or should i say Northern Ireland, is a boiling pot of extremes anyway, I do not think it is privvy to the rugby team. Catholic/Protestant, Rangers/Celtic, Royalists/Republicans, it's a very tense country for some people.

You cannot change the culture of a whole country. I deal with a firm from Newtonards, I have been over a few times, it's a lovely place but some of the questions you get asked.

So I think you are being a little unfair on the rugby team here.

Hedonists? Sin did you see the whatsapp messages a few years back with pictures of Murray and Zebo and a unnamed girl who they had a bit of fun with?

Sin é wrote:

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?

I'm not going to respond to that question because to do so would just continue to pollute this thread more 'noise' and commentary that has nothing whatsoever to do with Ulster rugby. The purpose of my initial statement was to call out a factual inaccuracy in your previous post - if the last 9 weeks have thought us anything, it's not to believe everything that we hear and to pass off rumour and innuendo as fact.

As for Jackson and Olding - they have been put through the full legal process under intense and invasive scrutiny and have been found not guilty by unanimous verdict. To me, that means that they are innocent. The problem with modern society is that there is an increasing number of people on social media (many of them faceless) who will screech and scream if they don't get their way. Therefore, rather than accept the process and its outcome, they will 'protest' and complain. Since this is mainly done through the medium of Twitter, there are no consequences or rules of engagement around this commentary - they can shout down anyone who holds an alternative view, threaten abuse, make false accusations, etc. - all behind the anonymity of their keyboard. Since paper never refused ink, this is then reported as 'news' by traditional media outlets, therefore somehow validating that protest. It is pathetic.

Ulster rugby and the IRFU should resolutely determine to treat Jackson and Olding as the innocent men that they are. They cannot and should not discriminate against them on the grounds of an accusation that was deemed to be unproveable in a Court of Law.

There will inevitably be a small number of supporters who, like those hordes on Twitter, will not be happy with this since it doesn't fit with their world view. But so what? To acknowledge them is to give them credence and essentially amounts to another form of 'trial and punishment' by social media. If you terminate or suspend the contracts of Jackson and Olding, then what's next? Where do you draw the line? Do you allow your policy to be determined by a small minority of the overall population simply because of faux outrage on Twitter?

No.

Jackson and Olding should return to Ulster. From my perspective, I will be there to support them and the team as I was before this incident even occurred.

Just one more general point: Sin é, you seem to be particularly aggrieved by this verdict and now also want to make more of what you perceive to be the cultural problems with Ulster in general. I've already noted that your previous post was inaccurate - obviously you have no problem in posting false commentary which serves to support your viewpoint. To me, you have zero credibility.

Collapse2005 wrote:Hedonists? Sin did you see the whatsapp messages a few years back with pictures of Murray and Zebo and a unnamed girl who they had a bit of fun with?

She was named.

Obviously, someone had a word with the two of them because since then Zebo has settled down and now has two beautiful children who he is always showing off and is about to move to France to secure their future and Murray has been quite as a mouse.

Even worse if she was named without legal basis.

My point is hedonism isnt something that exists only in Ulster nor is it necessarly immoral.

I someone wants to have a threesome man or woman they should be free to do so without people judging them.

Perhaps the considerable degree of judgement that exists contributed to this case going to trial.

UlsterinKildare wrote:

Sin é wrote:

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?

I'm not going to respond to that question because to do so would just continue to pollute this thread more 'noise' and commentary that has nothing whatsoever to do with Ulster rugby. The purpose of my initial statement was to call out a factual inaccuracy in your previous post - if the last 9 weeks have thought us anything, it's not to believe everything that we hear and to pass off rumour and innuendo as fact.

As for Jackson and Olding - they have been put through the full legal process under intense and invasive scrutiny and have been found not guilty by unanimous verdict. To me, that means that they are innocent. The problem with modern society is that there is an increasing number of people on social media (many of them faceless) who will screech and scream if they don't get their way. Therefore, rather than accept the process and its outcome, they will 'protest' and complain. Since this is mainly done through the medium of Twitter, there are no consequences or rules of engagement around this commentary - they can shout down anyone who holds an alternative view, threaten abuse, make false accusations, etc. - all behind the anonymity of their keyboard. Since paper never refused ink, this is then reported as 'news' by traditional media outlets, therefore somehow validating that protest. It is pathetic.

Ulster rugby and the IRFU should resolutely determine to treat Jackson and Olding as the innocent men that they are. They cannot and should not discriminate against them on the grounds of an accusation that was deemed to be unproveable in a Court of Law.

There will inevitably be a small number of supporters who, like those hordes on Twitter, will not be happy with this since it doesn't fit with their world view. But so what? To acknowledge them is to give them credence and essentially amounts to another form of 'trial and punishment' by social media. If you terminate or suspend the contracts of Jackson and Olding, then what's next? Where do you draw the line? Do you allow your policy to be determined by a small minority of the overall population simply because of faux outrage on Twitter?

No.

Jackson and Olding should return to Ulster. From my perspective, I will be there to support them and the team as I was before this incident even occurred.

So you are unable to answer why the woman's profile was removed and her job changed even though no criminal offence was committed says its all about what you know.

UlsterinKildare wrote:Just one more general point: Sin é, you seem to be particularly aggrieved by this verdict and now also want to make more of what you perceive to be the cultural problems with Ulster in general. I've already noted that your previous post was inaccurate - obviously you have no problem in posting false commentary which serves to support your viewpoint. To me, you have zero credibility.

I'm not aggrieved by the verdict. I feel sorry for them and their families and I think all are poorly served by the justice system. Since I've had to endure their dirty linen being washed in public, I'd prefer not to be associated with or be represented by those players in an Ireland jersey and if Ulster has any sense, neither would they.

Collapse2005 wrote:Even worse if she was named without legal basis.

My point is hedonism isnt something that exists only in Ulster nor is it necessarly immoral.

I someone wants to have a threesome man or woman they should be free to do so without people judging them.

Wasn't it her friend he outed her. Anyway, as far as I know she wasn't bothered and felt no shame about it. Her employers obviously took a different view as they moved her.

Hedoism doesn't go down well with the general population. Rugby push all these family values and how players are role models. I see some Laois GAA player was reprimanded and had to apologise for calling the woman in question a promiscuous.

Sin é wrote:

UlsterinKildare wrote:Just one more general point: Sin é, you seem to be particularly aggrieved by this verdict and now also want to make more of what you perceive to be the cultural problems with Ulster in general. I've already noted that your previous post was inaccurate - obviously you have no problem in posting false commentary which serves to support your viewpoint. To me, you have zero credibility.

I'm not aggrieved by the verdict. I feel sorry for them and their families and I think all are poorly served by the justice system. Since I've had to endure their dirty linen being washed in public, I'd prefer not to be associated with or be represented by those players in an Ireland jersey and if Ulster has any sense, neither would they.

OMG

Where does this guy get off ?

They were proven not guilty. If by going what you have commented on here, perhaps you should take a little look at yourself before judging others.

Sin é wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Even worse if she was named without legal basis.

My point is hedonism isnt something that exists only in Ulster nor is it necessarly immoral.

I someone wants to have a threesome man or woman they should be free to do so without people judging them.

Wasn't it her friend he outed her. Anyway, as far as I know she wasn't bothered and felt no shame about it. Her employers obviously took a different view as they moved her.

Exactly she should be free to do what she wants without judgement. If she lost her job thats disgusting.

LordDowlais wrote:

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 ?

Have you actually read what we've written or as you usual flown off the handle without having a clue?

Collapse2005 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Even worse if she was named without legal basis.

My point is hedonism isnt something that exists only in Ulster nor is it necessarly immoral.

I someone wants to have a threesome man or woman they should be free to do so without people judging them.

Wasn't it her friend he outed her. Anyway, as far as I know she wasn't bothered and felt no shame about it. Her employers obviously took a different view as they moved her.

Exactly she should be free to do what she wants without judgement. If she lost her job thats disgusting.

I don't think she lost her job - she was just moved away from the audit team.

MrsP wrote:A couple of points.

The girl is reported to have said in text messages that her period had started. This was confirmed in medical evidence.

The problem folk seem to be having with what LD said seems to be because they believe that there was no consent.

I suspect LD is taking the same view as the jury, that there was consent and then regret.

I don't think he is saying that the behaviour of the girl removed the need for consent.

I think he means he would be disappointed if his children put themselves in a position where they took part in activity which they later regretted.

Oh FFS, a jury has to decide if the prosecution made their case. That's all, they could easily believe the girl was raped but don't believe there is enough evidence and have reasonable doubt. I wish people would stop making conclusions that are not part of the legal process

Still not right. The only difference between that case and the ulster case is the girl in the middle didnt regret it based on the ruling anyway. Zebo and murray are better looking in fairness.

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:

UlsterinKildare wrote:Just one more general point: Sin é, you seem to be particularly aggrieved by this verdict and now also want to make more of what you perceive to be the cultural problems with Ulster in general. I've already noted that your previous post was inaccurate - obviously you have no problem in posting false commentary which serves to support your viewpoint. To me, you have zero credibility.

I'm not aggrieved by the verdict. I feel sorry for them and their families and I think all are poorly served by the justice system. Since I've had to endure their dirty linen being washed in public, I'd prefer not to be associated with or be represented by those players in an Ireland jersey and if Ulster has any sense, neither would they.

OMG

Where does this guy get off ?

They were proven not guilty. If by going what you have commented on here, perhaps you should take a little look at yourself before judging others.

Yes, I had a little look. No, I don't have 24 drinks on a night out (and never have), no, I don't engage in 3somes, no, I don't stick my dick in someone I don't even know their name, and no, I don't send teenagers home in a taxi crying and then call them a promiscuous and boast about it on WhatsApp.

Not your place to judge someone for having a one night stand Sin.

marty2086 wrote:Oh FFS, a jury has to decide if the prosecution made their case. That's all, they could easily believe the girl was raped but don't believe there is enough evidence and have reasonable doubt. I wish people would stop making conclusions that are not part of the legal proc

Or you could actually read all the evidence and reports before you go making stupid claims about the legal system on here. If you actually read everything, or what you think is everything, like myself and others have done, then you would have to question who really was in the wrong here and what were they wrong for.

In my eyes, the boys were in the wrong, but they did not do what they were accused of. They were just plebs.

Collapse2005 wrote:Not your place to judge someone for having a one night stand Sin.

I'm not judging them for that.

So you've read everything now ld. Cos above you said you hadn't and were basing your thoughts purely on the jury decision.

LordDowlais wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Oh FFS, a jury has to decide if the prosecution made their case. That's all, they could easily believe the girl was raped but don't believe there is enough evidence and have reasonable doubt. I wish people would stop making conclusions that are not part of the legal proc

Or you could actually read all the evidence and reports before you go making stupid claims about the legal system on here. If you actually read everything, or what you think is everything, like myself and others have done, then you would have to question who really was in the wrong here and what were they wrong for.

In my eyes, the boys were in the wrong, but they did not do what they were accused of. They were just plebs.

Again?

What the evidence is doesn't change the conclusions a jury can reach, maybe you could learn that rather than attacking me without having a clue once again what you are talking about. These are pretty basic things in any society that you seem unable to grasp

My comment was relevant to the fact MrsP had stated

I suspect LD is taking the same view as the jury, that there was consent and then regret.

Again, a jury doesn't decide that and to draw that conclusion is wrong

Sin é wrote:

LordDowlais wrote:

Sin é wrote:

UlsterinKildare wrote:Just one more general point: Sin é, you seem to be particularly aggrieved by this verdict and now also want to make more of what you perceive to be the cultural problems with Ulster in general. I've already noted that your previous post was inaccurate - obviously you have no problem in posting false commentary which serves to support your viewpoint. To me, you have zero credibility.

I'm not aggrieved by the verdict. I feel sorry for them and their families and I think all are poorly served by the justice system. Since I've had to endure their dirty linen being washed in public, I'd prefer not to be associated with or be represented by those players in an Ireland jersey and if Ulster has any sense, neither would they.

OMG

Where does this guy get off ?

They were proven not guilty. If by going what you have commented on here, perhaps you should take a little look at yourself before judging others.

Yes, I had a little look. No, I don't have 24 drinks on a night out (and never have), no, I don't engage in 3somes, no, I don't stick my dick in someone I don't even know their name, and no, I don't send teenagers home in a taxi crying and then call them a promiscuous and boast about it on WhatsApp.

I never said you did all that.

But you are very judgemental, and you sit very high on your horse. That is behaviour that most people would not want to associate with and makes you no better than the people you are looking down your nose at.

Nobody is condoning these boys behaviour, no one on here has said that they have not behaved badly, what we are all saying is, that they have been scrutinised by the British judicial system, and been found not guilty. Now, lets move on, let them live their lives, let them play rugby.

You on the other hand seem to have some other agenda over this. i would much rather you came out and be honest about what your real motives behind this is.

marty2086 wrote:What the evidence is doesn't change the conclusions a jury can reach, maybe you could learn that rather than attacking me without having a clue once again what you are talking about. These are pretty basic things in any society that you seem unable to grasp

OK marty, so you think the boys are guilty ?

I don't, because the court said they were not. I say, lets move on from this, let the boys live their lives, and let them play rugby.