The UAFC

Day 271. Lest we move on.

Bring our boys home.

FIRFUC

Rugby star Conor Murray has admitted "crazy" rumours that he had failed a drugs test while out injured "hurt" both him and his family.

The Munster and Ireland player only recently returned to action after a mystery neck complaint kept him sidelined for almost five months.

His Ciallis stuck in his throat and gave him a stiff neck.

Druggie twunt

Deraless wrote:https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&sourc ... 2014154198

Pleaded guilty.
Jail sentence.
"Fans" harassed victim.

No decision from club even yet.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

How can you be an adult for the purposes of having sex but a child for the purposes of having your picture shared?
They set out to get him using what looks to be an anomaly in the law and they got him.
Sounds like Cliftonville are showing a bit more backbone than Ulster rugby did.
They're standing by a guy who has been found guilty while UR fired players who were found not guilty.
I know which group of people sound the more compassionate or to use that old fashioned term, "christian", to me.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bs_KirHlvT7 ... 6k81opn1e5

Silly video but you can see the names of Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding on the legends wall. Well played UR.

Day 285. Lest we move on.

Bring our boys home.

FIRFUC

WeeWorld wrote:

Deraless wrote:https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&sourc ... 2014154198

Pleaded guilty.
Jail sentence.
"Fans" harassed victim.

No decision from club even yet.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

How can you be an adult for the purposes of having sex but a child for the purposes of having your picture shared?
They set out to get him using what looks to be an anomaly in the law and they got him.
Sounds like Cliftonville are showing a bit more backbone than Ulster rugby did.
They're standing by a guy who has been found guilty while UR fired players who were found not guilty.
I know which group of people sound the more compassionate or to use that old fashioned term, "christian", to me.

When your 16 year old daughter has indecent images of her distributed without her consent to the mates of an Irish league footballer, then maybe you'd not come out with such crass BS.

Catch yourself on. This is an awful post on so many levels. Specifically you seem to be justifying Jay Donnelly's actions.

You gotta love Jay’s Defence team using the old ‘Thicker Than Shyte’ strategy. His IQ is in the bottom 8% of morons and he isn’t even ginger.

Tender wrote:You gotta love Jay’s Defence team using the old ‘Thicker Than Shyte’ strategy. His IQ is in the bottom 8% of morons and he isn’t even ginger.

Not that thick that he didn't know how to use WhatsApp

Tender wrote:You gotta love Jay’s Defence team using the old ‘Thicker Than Shyte’ strategy. His IQ is in the bottom 8% of morons and he isn’t even ginger.

The flaw in his defence argument is that this IQ puts Donnelly in the top 8% of the population across large swathes of North Belfast.

He’s a hateful gobshîte and Cliftonville are a disgrace

OneMore wrote:

WeeWorld wrote:

Deraless wrote:https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&sourc ... 2014154198

Pleaded guilty.
Jail sentence.
"Fans" harassed victim.

No decision from club even yet.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

How can you be an adult for the purposes of having sex but a child for the purposes of having your picture shared?
They set out to get him using what looks to be an anomaly in the law and they got him.
Sounds like Cliftonville are showing a bit more backbone than Ulster rugby did.
They're standing by a guy who has been found guilty while UR fired players who were found not guilty.
I know which group of people sound the more compassionate or to use that old fashioned term, "christian", to me.

When your 16 year old daughter has indecent images of her distributed without her consent to the mates of an Irish league footballer, then maybe you'd not come out with such crass BS.

Catch yourself on. This is an awful post on so many levels. Specifically you seem to be justifying Jay Donnelly's actions.

They got him for distributing indecent images of a child.
It seems to me that it's stretching things to classify someone as a child if they
are legally allowed to have sex.
Do you not agree?

WeeWorld wrote:

OneMore wrote:

WeeWorld wrote:

Deraless wrote:https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=i&sourc ... 2014154198

Pleaded guilty.
Jail sentence.
"Fans" harassed victim.

No decision from club even yet.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

How can you be an adult for the purposes of having sex but a child for the purposes of having your picture shared?
They set out to get him using what looks to be an anomaly in the law and they got him.
Sounds like Cliftonville are showing a bit more backbone than Ulster rugby did.
They're standing by a guy who has been found guilty while UR fired players who were found not guilty.
I know which group of people sound the more compassionate or to use that old fashioned term, "christian", to me.

When your 16 year old daughter has indecent images of her distributed without her consent to the mates of an Irish league footballer, then maybe you'd not come out with such crass BS.

Catch yourself on. This is an awful post on so many levels. Specifically you seem to be justifying Jay Donnelly's actions.

They got him for distributing indecent images of a child.
It seems to me that it's stretching things to classify someone as a child if they
are legally allowed to have sex.
Do you not agree?

No. Absolutely not.

Your argument is that if 2 16 year olds can legally have sex, then it should be ok to make and distribute indecent images of a 16 year old, and I thoroughly disagree with that.

I may be way out of step with the societal zeitgeist, but I'm a little bit horrified that this is even a discussion. Please don't make or distribute indecent images of 16 year olds. Worse to do it without their consent - though I'm not sure where the law in NI stands on that - I believe it was made illegal in England/Wales in the last couple of years.

OneMore wrote: Your argument is that if 2 16 year olds can legally have sex, then it should be ok to make and distribute indecent images of a 16 year old, and I thoroughly disagree with that.

No, that's not my argument at all.
The reason he's in trouble is because she's legally classified as a child with respect to the distribution of a photograph.
But she is not legally classified as a child for the purposes of engaging in sexual intercourse.
Does that not seem illogical to you?

Easy way to settle this. What does the law actually say? Go with that.