Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Main Street

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 709
General discussion / Re: The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread
« on: April 24, 2018, 10:40:49 PM »
Excellent attacking performance, made Roma look hapless which they are not, 5-2 keeps the tie sober.

General discussion / Re: Tablets
« on: April 24, 2018, 10:36:10 PM »
Just realised that Apple are no longer supporting the IPad that i have and it will no longer receive updates.  Would i be best to try and jailbreak it now? If so, any tips on how to do that? The tablet works perfectly well and i would have had no intention of upgrading it.

What iPad have you got?

4th generation
Why try and fix a working iPad and by breaking it? What positive outcome do you expect to happen from that action?
You'll be able to use this iPad for years to come, it has 4G WiFi and IOS 10.
It's the ipad's 4 hardware that's the problem, not Apple's absent support in it's latest ios release.
IOS 11 is designed to run on the latest iPads, those newer ipads have much more memory, processor speed, graphics ability and the operating system  adjusts to make better use of that hardware for applications and general usage.

General discussion / Re: Official Gooners Thread aka Déjà vu
« on: April 22, 2018, 06:50:48 PM »
"Only one Arsène Wenger"…

Crocodile tears.

General discussion / Re: The Offical Glasgow Celtic thread
« on: April 22, 2018, 01:07:29 AM »
Afair it was the first time I was hoping Celtic would not equalise. To use the Klopp slide rule, Celtic didn't need the points but Hibs surely do to wreak some havoc in the league table and their fans were just brilliant, in full voice today. That was a totally deserved victory for Hibs today.

GAA Discussion / Re: You can take the boy out of Tyrone
« on: April 17, 2018, 10:48:22 PM »
 It was a case of a Tyrone man bites dog.

From the linked article
'It's understood Dickson claimed McKenna bit him after the Irishman was run down by the Dog'.

General discussion / Re: Paddy Jackson apology
« on: April 17, 2018, 12:19:14 AM »
As has already been mentioned he wasn't charged with rape. He didn't leave a girl bleeding and distressed. And I believe he has been sanctioned in some way, just not sacked.

I shouldn't have said saddos - I apologise.

These men have been presumed innocent of accusations of sexual assault and rape from the moment and unanimously found not guilty by a jury of their peers of the same charges. They are and cannot be disciplined for any of those charges legally. If you don't understand that you disqualify yourself from being take seriously in these debates.

These two men have been sacked because their employers have an ethical issue with how they conduct their private lives - pure and simple. That is a very dangerous precedent as they now have to follow it up. It's a very good job that the IRFU don't apply these standards retrospectively or, for example, one of the world's best half backs would be out on his ear also.

Where else is this moral code to be applied? How about employees who take performance enhancing drugs? What about players who take recreational drugs or use legal narcotics in doses that induce well being effects? What about Ulster players who are members of the Orange Order? Drink driving offences? Slapping their children?

Pandora's box is opened and you can be sure that every personal indiscretion of IRFU employees going forward will be throw on the altar for moral judgement.

You do understand there's a difference between when someone maintains they gave consent and another person maintains they did not give consent - do you?

As we're aware of, the bar for a criminal conviction is very high as it should be. Not being convicted doesn't mean their behaviour was fine. They knew this girl was upset at the very least. They brought this on themselves with their actions. Any sympathy for them is grossly misplaced.

Legally, charges that they have been found not guilty of cannot be used as part of their dismissal - surely you grasp that? The trial cannot be used as part of the IRFU's reasoning.

This is very clear - irrespective of how much smoke and dust that is kicked up around it - these two players have been sacked because of how they conduct themselves in their personal lives irrespective of those actions being perfectly legal.
That is simply not true.  I don't know why this line continues to be pedalled out.

Exactly. Completely untrue. I wouldn't mind but it's not even that far back on this thread where it has been stated that in other professions people are let go if they get arrested.

Just because you repeat something that doesn't make it true

In a statement, the IRFU and Ulster Rugby said: "In arriving at this decision, the IRFU and Ulster Rugby said they acknowledged their responsibility and commitment to the core values of the game - respect, inclusivity and integrity."

There is no mention of the court case. The IRFU could have interviewed witnesses, examined testimony, etc. but they didn't - they made a decision on these contracts based on a commitment to the core values of the game as they see them - which they are perfectly entitled to do.

The problem they have now is that every employee has to be held stringently to the the same core values.
I fully expect the rugby legends that have a contract with the IRFU, are required to hold to the core values.  Why do you think they have to be "stringently" holding to the core values? Where do pull this "stringent" word from?  It would appear to me that those 2 rugby lads deviated so far from the core values that their admitted behavior was taken to task and adjudicated upon. Stringent was not an issue.
Is it not obvious that not being deemed to be falling foul of the law does not necessarily whitewash one's actions. The law does not arbitrate what is morality, it never has, nor does the criteria for establishing guilt in a court arbitrate how any association can legally set up their own constitution and ethical standards.
Now homosexuality is legal, was it immoral before the law was changed?

General discussion / Re: Paddy Jackson apology
« on: April 15, 2018, 04:22:02 PM »
What is annoying (slightly) is the bandwagon vegan treehuggers feminists crowd who have become a ‘movement’ and refused to accept the rule of law and using this high profile case as a platform to make news and ‘educate’ men .. they’d do well to protest at such tv programmes like Ex on the beach, Geordie shore, love island! The tr**p talk from the women on those shows is a lot worse.. ........
It isn't so much that things slightly annoy you, it's more that you get (interminably) annoyed by the slightest things and go on and on  ::)
You appear have an existence littered with misfortune, not only being constantly annoyed over this and that event in society, sneering at one and all but also (according your account) accidentally landing face to face with such pulp tv content, but to the extent that you took notes and have opinions. ;D

General discussion / Re: Paddy Jackson apology
« on: April 12, 2018, 10:37:51 PM »

Dara Florence’s version of what she saw in the bedroom flatly contradicted the complainant’s version.
It did no such thing.

It flatly contradicted Jackson.

If you believe Florence, you believe Jackson lied about having vaginal sex with the complainant.
I do, sid I sure do.
But I also said, that what the defence has to say is/was immaterial. It was up to the prosecution to prove its case and they didn't.

(BTW, when you calm down a bit, you will find that Florence contradicted both parties.)
Indeed DF's evidence contradicted both accounts,  but a small retriever for the prosecution, when at the end of her testimony she admitted she did not actually witness consent, it was just an impression.

You either accept the rule of law or you don't.
That's too black and white.
Accept the jury's decision, yes, 100% on the evidence presented in court  but i don't accept the legal procedure, i think this belfast courtroom and legal procedure was a toxic environment. The witness for the prosecution who also happens to be the complainant gets little protection in comparison to what the accused receive. Perhaps she gets treated a little better over the course of the proceedings than a snitch at a mafia mob boss trial, but not much better. I like what Noeline Blackwell the civil rights lawyer had to say about aspects of the imbalances,  eg. that the complainant should get the benefit of  having her own legal counsel, before in preparation for the what may transpire and also during the case with full rights  to intervene on her behalf in court. And that trial should be private, normal enough stuff i'd say.

General discussion / Re: TV Show recommendations
« on: April 11, 2018, 11:37:17 PM »
I've finished the 3 series of the The Bureau, aka Le Bureau des Légendes. Without any doubt it's the best spy centric drama ever conceived
and ranks up there as a top class tv drama.

This is a GAA board member's TV Show recommendation.

Where do I find it?
In my circumstances, I just downloaded it from a torrent website Lime Torrents, probably there are a hundred similar options available.

I see on Wikipedia that it was released on Amazon Prime exclusively, possibly that explains its limited exposure.  It's easy enough to find out  if its your cup of tea type drama, by viewing the first 3 episodes of series one, as the rest follows on in a similar vein.

General discussion / Re: TV Show recommendations
« on: April 11, 2018, 09:57:59 PM »
I've finished the 3 series of the The Bureau, aka Le Bureau des Légendes. Without any doubt it's the best spy centric drama ever conceived
and ranks up there as a top class tv drama.

This is a GAA board member's TV Show recommendation.

GAA Discussion / Re: Tyrone v Monaghan, Sun 20th May, Healy Park
« on: April 09, 2018, 10:26:05 PM »
I see the Tyronies are finding a second wind of bluster to follow on from a more tentative opening, the Tyronie just cannot cannot mask the dour humourless nature for very long. It just takes someone to say they are going to lose, to rattle their can.

Banty's Back!! with the minors this time, hammering Tyrone for fun in Inniskeen over the weekend (only 6 red cards though).
Ominous for Tyrone.

GAA Discussion / Re: Tyrone v Monaghan, Sun 20th May, Healy Park
« on: April 08, 2018, 07:42:13 PM »
I see the thread's gone quiet. After a brief flurry, Tyronies run out of wind?

GAA Discussion / Re: Tyrone v Monaghan, Sun 20th May, Healy Park
« on: April 05, 2018, 10:45:26 PM »
This is Monaghan's year, unlike other years which were also 'Monaghan's year'  but instead turned out to be false doctrines. I foresee us with a luxurious 4 point cushion going into the last minutes and winning comfortably by a point,  or did that happen already?
Well, regardless,  the red flag will be at half mast post game.

General discussion / Re: The ulster rugby trial
« on: April 04, 2018, 11:24:10 PM »
In respect of the claimsabout  the QC's trail comments, I think they are being unfairly judged here out of context. The comment about middle class girls was in response to the complainant saying she didn't know anything about the others in the house or how'd they would react if she called out. The complainant also I'm told by someone who was there made some comment about being middle class and not being used to going back to people's houses for sex after nights out. Now I can't find that reported anywhere but if it was said it would explain the comments to some degree.

You need  a direct quote from the complainant about middle class, hearsay has no value.
Also It doesn't read to me that the QC's ever suggested that because the complainant said at least use a condom or because she hadn't screamed it meant she was consenting. Rather it seemed they were highlighting all the evidence in the case that tended to support their contention that she had consented in other ways and/or that the defendants had a reasonable belief in that consent.
If you take on board the defence's carefully choreographed picture of events, then you can perceive singular events such as the condom reference as good evidence of consent, you can even perceive the lack of screaming as good evidence of consent (however irrational),  one can also perceive the lady's type of underwear as evidence of being partial to consent, I am not persuaded by such claims. There just was not enough evidence to support her contention that consent was not given, but  that is not to say definitively that the woman consented to all that "carry on".
The evidence to support the defence's argument that she did give consent is weak and has little real value. Perhaps the defence's argument just gains a vastly exaggerated value because there is an absence of quality neutral evidence to support the claimant's contention of no consent.
Perhaps that's the context why people get persuaded by such weak 'evidence' of consent,  such as  type of underwear and  that she didn't scream.

General discussion / Re: The OFFICIAL Liverpool FC thread
« on: April 04, 2018, 09:49:57 PM »
That was a dominant excellent performance by Liverpool, 3 goals in the first half and held City scoreless without too much grief in the 2nd half, even the officials played their part  calling that City goal offside.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 709