Ulster Team Talk Thread III: Les Miserables SEE MOD WARNING POST #1924 + #2755

Bridge93

Hurrache wrote: »

I didn't say it doesn't happen.

Not saying you did, just that it's far more common than many seem to think. While not suggesting it's right, I'd go so far as to say it's standard conversation in the majority of groups and in the vast majority of cases nothing is actually meant by it

jm08

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Everybody in that bedroom was behaving without regard for the consequences.

Not all of them are employed by IRFU/Ulster Rugby.

3 other women there took personal responsibility and managed to have an 'enjoyable' night.
Until the allegation of rape, the men believed they had had an 'enjoyable' night.

Not sure what your point is.

bilston

Bridge93 wrote: »

Could anyone amidst the carnage give me the lowdown on Matty Rea? Only seeing the game fully now and he looks a real find

He's developing nicely. Getting better with every game. Last night was his best performance. I think he emerged playing for Ballymena, got a contract last season but was injured for most of it. He's 23 or 24 so not a young kid but still plenty of development in him.

Last night he did pretty much everything, carried Well, won turnovers, made tackles and did his bit in the lineout. Very impressive.

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

I somehow doubt the majority of rugby players, or men in general, discuss women in such a manner.

Bridge93 wrote: »

You'd be in for a nasty shock if you saw most WhatsApp groups. It's also far from just men

Hurrache wrote: »

I didn't say it doesn't happen.

Bridge93 addressed your majority claim directly, its not fair to pretend he suggested you said it never happened.

Downlinz

Buer wrote: »

I'm beginning to realise that a large section of our society is incredibly sheltered If they don't think these converstaions aren't had by thousands of men and women on WhatsApp in this country every day.

I'm bewildered that people could still be so naive in this day.

Maybe it's those involved in those kind of conversations who are sheltered if they believe it's completely normal and everyone else is doing it....

[Deleted User]

[Deleted User] wrote: »

If it wasn't they can take them to the EAT or the UK equivalent depending on jurisdiction.

They can do whatever they like, as you've been previously informed there is strong case law on the validity of morality clauses in sport, not to mention that in the UK (as someone on here and on Reddit has mentioned) even being charged with a crime can be under some circumstances a valid reason for dismissal.

Bridge93

jm08 wrote: »

I don't recall hearing about any derogatory text messages/whatsapp messages about women from either of the two players involved.

Who knows how they were reprimanded by the IRFU/Munster which if they were, it was effective as they cleaned up their act bigtime.

You said having a threesome with a stranger is unhealthy. Regarding that statement everything else that makes the cases different is irrelevant. You said the threesome part is unhealthy which is what the cases have in common

joseywhales

awec wrote: »

We have more irrelevant “evidence” than the jury had. There is a reason the jury are prevented from seeing certain things, to ensure a fair trial.

The jury saw everything that was relevant to this trial in much more detail than we have.

The blood on the sheets for example, totally irrelevant to the trial and would easily be exploited by the prosecution. Jury don’t see it but it sure makes a nice story for the media.

You said "it was proven that a rape did not happen"

But that was not the question put to the jury. That was not proven.

awec

jm08 wrote: »

I don't recall hearing about any derogatory text messages/whatsapp messages about women from either of the two players involved.

Who knows how they were reprimanded by the IRFU/Munster which if they were, it was effective as they cleaned up their act bigtime.

Your back must be sore from moving those goalposts.

You have no idea if there were text messages or not, their PRIVATE conversations were not made public.

You said PJ and SO deserve what they are getting for poor lifestyle choices like having a threesome. They aren’t the first.

heroics

jm08 wrote: »

Yes, picking up random women outside a nightclub and having threesomes with them isn't a healthy thing to do. Then there was the amount of alcohol they consumed. Even Willie John was impressed with the quantity.

You forgot “in your opinion” in front of that statement. What makes it not healthy?

prawnsambo

Bridge93 wrote: »

You said having a threesome with a stranger is unhealthy. Regarding that statement everything else that makes the cases different is irrelevant. You said the threesome part is unhealthy which is what the cases have in common

It might also be the 'stranger' element. For any number of reasons. Including the lack of knowledge of how they would react to something that you might consider 'normal'.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

I don't recall hearing about any derogatory text messages/whatsapp messages about women from either of the two players involved.

Who knows how they were reprimanded by the IRFU/Munster which if they were, it was effective as they cleaned up their act bigtime.

WTF?

You realise it's 2018?

Two Munster players were involved in a consensual threesome several years ago.

What about that possibly requires any element of 'cleaning up'?

And how on earth can you proclaim something like this, are you wholly confident that both involved never had a threesome again?

bizzare

Bridge93

prawnsambo wrote: »

It might also be the 'stranger' element. For any number of reasons. Including the lack of knowledge of how they would react to something that you might consider 'normal'.

Was the girl with the two Munster boys a friend of theirs? I've no idea of the intricacies of what went on their

irishbucsfan

I'd just like to stop everyone here and say that I am disgusted to see threesomes being dragged through the mud here. Threesomes were not on trial. Threesomes were not sacked by the IRFU. Long live threesomes.

Bridge93

Bridge93 wrote: »

Was the girl with the two Munster boys a friend of theirs? I've no idea of the intricacies of what went on their

it was their first time meeting the girl

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032

PJ : "There was a lot of spit roast last night."
.

And that's enough to cost some one their job??
Excuse from IRFU and Ulster, it has nothing to do with the Group Chat and everything to do with the trial

jm08

Bridge93 wrote: »

You said having a threesome with a stranger is unhealthy. Regarding that statement everything else that makes the cases different is irrelevant. You said the threesome part is unhealthy which is what the cases have in common

Ignoring the morality question of 3somes, the point I was making is that having sex with strangers without having any protection is dangerous.

prawnsambo

Bridge93 wrote: »

Was the girl with the two Munster boys a friend of theirs? I've no idea of the intricacies of what went on their

I've no idea. I was just speaking generally.

Bridge93

jm08 wrote: »

Ignoring the morality question of 3somes, the point I was making is that having sex with strangers without having any protection is dangerous.

Yeah I wouldn't despute that at all

irishbucsfan

jm08 wrote: »

Ignoring the morality question of 3somes, the point I was making is that having sex with strangers without having any protection is dangerous.

That's completely irrelevant to these lads getting the sack.

jacothelad

DGRulz wrote: »

How is it that Jackson says possibly the least controversial or offensive thing in that chat and gets fired and Gilroy says potentially the worst thing and he gets a 2 game ban? No way this was based just on WhatsApp messages.

Of course it isn't. It is based on a number of things. There is the hysterical over- reaction by a social media lynch mob to those messages followed by a hate fuelled gutter press delightfully seeking clicks by pandering to the prurient nature of their readership. Chuck in the astonishingly laughable fact of the B.o.I pretending to be moral guardians when in fact they are a bunch of crooks who almost drove the country to ruin and actually have driven people to suicide by their criminal thievery over mortgages. I have been a B.o.I (U.K.)customer - as has my wife - since we were students. Not any more. We have closed our accounts. As for Vodaphone, one of the biggest tax dodgers in the U.K. Moral guardians they ain't.

It is also based on the simple fact that they were accused. That is enough for many moral cowards. If the trial had taken place in Dublin rather than Belfast the outcome would be entirely different as the accused would have been provided with some of the protections afforded to the complainant who came up with as many stories as Aesop.

The bottom line though is that their lack of decency is entirely their own fault. In the end the responsibility is their own.

jm08

Deleted User wrote: »

And that's enough to cost some one their job??
Excuse from IRFU and Ulster, it has nothing to do with the Group Chat and everything to do with the trial

Its to do with their attitude to women (that they are there to be spit roasted).

jm08

irishbucsfan wrote: »

That's completely irrelevant to these lads getting the sack.

It was a comment on questions about their poor lifestyle.

prawnsambo

jacothelad wrote: »

Of course it isn't. It is based on a number of things. There is the hysterical over- reaction by a social media lynch mob to those messages followed by a hate fuelled gutter press delightfully seeking clicks by pandering to the prurient nature of their readership. Chuck in the astonishingly laughable fact of the B.o.I pretending to be moral guardians when in fact they are a bunch of crooks who almost drove the country to ruin and actually have driven people to suicide by their criminal thievery over mortgages. I have been a B.o.I (U.K.)customer - as has my wife - since we were students. Not any more. We have closed our accounts. As for Vodaphone, one of the biggest tax dodgers in the U.K. Moral guardians they ain't.

It is also based on the simple fact that they were accused. That is enough for many moral cowards. If the trial had taken place in Dublin rather than Belfast the outcome would be entirely different as the accused would have been provided with some of the protections afforded to the complainant who came up with as many stories as Aesop.

If you think the sponsors are (or were) taking a stand becaise of their morals, you're either very naive or very deluded. Neither of which I think you are.

Their only focus is their business. And they think that this issue could affect it. If everybody was applauding the verdict and praising the lads, do you think the sponsors would be in any way concerned?

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

Its to do with their attitude to women (that they are there to be spit roasted).

Some women like being spit-roasted, some men too.

joseywhales

If we are going to have a debate on the morality of what they did based on what we know, it's going to be very subjective. I would say at the very least they showed a lack of respect and care for someone that was apparently a guest in PJ's house. If a distraught girl leaves your house you should probably ask her what's up and talk to her, maybe follow up with a call etc., Particularly if you see some blood and she was in your bedroom. If I felt innocent in that situation, I would be out to visit the girl for a chat and to apologise before there was any escalation and even if their was I would feel like it's the right thing to do. I don't think this happened with the other infamous threesome.

I'm not concerned about anyone's sexual proclivities.

awec

jm08 wrote: »

Ignoring the morality question of 3somes, the point I was making is that having sex with strangers without having any protection is dangerous.

The application of a sheath to the erect penis during an instance of sexual intercourse where there are multiple active penises and a lone vagina is completely irrelevant.

jm08

jm08 wrote: »

Its to do with their attitude to women (that they are there to be spit roasted).

Can you tell me where in PJ's single text message of 10 words you were able to completely and totally understand his attitude to women to such an extent that you are happy that he is losing his livelihood?

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.joe.ie/life-style/anatomy-of-a-night-out-read-the-whatsapp-and-text-messages-sent-by-jackson-olding-mciiroy-harrison-and-others-as-heard-by-the-jury-618032

PJ : "There was a lot of spit roast last night."

jacothelad

jacothelad wrote: »

Of course it isn't. It is based on a number of things. There is the hysterical over- reaction by a social media lynch mob to those messages followed by a hate fuelled gutter press delightfully seeking clicks by pandering to the prurient nature of their readership. Chuck in the astonishingly laughable fact of the B.o.I pretending to be moral guardians when in fact they are a bunch of crooks who almost drove the country to ruin and actually have driven people to suicide by their criminal thievery over mortgages. I have been a B.o.I (U.K.)customer - as has my wife - since we were students. Not any more. We have closed our accounts. As for Vodaphone, one of the biggest tax dodgers in the U.K. Moral guardians they ain't.

It is also based on the simple fact that they were accused. That is enough for many moral cowards. If the trial had taken place in Dublin rather than Belfast the outcome would be entirely different as the accused would have been provided with some of the protections afforded to the complainant who came up with as many stories as Aesop.

The bottom line though is that their lack of decency is entirely their own fault. In the end the responsibility is their own.

And this is an excellent example of what makes the middle ground think there is a wider rugby culture that needs to be stamped out.

How are you not aware that the arguments and opinions you are espousing are just as toxic as the extreme feminist fringe you are decrying?

Your argument consists entirely of ad hominems and the irony is that you are arguing that organisations that once did bad things have no right to try to do good things.

Here's a shocker for you, that's the same argument the 'social media lynch mob" are making against PJ and SO. They cannot be reformed, they are a lost cause and they are forever discredited.

Perhaps you should join Twitter?

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

And this is an excellent example of what makes the middle ground think there is a wider rugby culture that needs to be stamped out.

Please explain what you earnestly believe is the culture that needs to be stamped out.