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

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

That happened in public.

All of the details of that infamous night were also made public during a trial. Clearly something in those details or the fact of them were seen as a breach of their contracts. What exactly those were, we don't know.

determinations

awec wrote: »

How many blokes do you think can tell the difference ffs?

As a woman, I couldn't tell the difference.

durthacht

durthacht wrote: »

If there is a code of conduct as part of the contract, and their behaviour violated that code, then conceivably they were in breach of the contract and it could be a sackable offence. I assume they recognise this and that is why they have both accepted the IRFU action to fire them.

Hold on, let's think rationally here for a second. I am pointedly taking issue with particular statements for a reason, because I don't think people are thinking them through very well.

Deleted User wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

Yes context is important but your whole argument is predicated on them being fired for their WhatsApp involvement which I think is not true.

They showed a complete lack of respect for their injured female guest at the very least, the fact that they boasted about it later is only slightly relevant.

I don't know about you but I liked to be judged for how I treat people not what I say.

Is that a sacking offence?!

Are you seriously suggesting that 'showing disrespect'* for a person is enough to get you sacked? That it breaches a code of conduct to the extent that it is enough to have you lose your job?

*I am aware that I am isolating statements, and actually decontextualising the situation, but we have to be careful about setting precedents and stipulations that are ultimately utterly flawed here. I am also aware that PJ was also involved in court proceedings which could be judged to have brought Ulster Rugby / IRFU into disrepute.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

I opened twitter and it's on the left hand side, does that not mean it's trending?

No, I think it just means it's showing up in the timelines of whatever accounts you are following.

joseywhales

sydthebeat wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

Man he is getting serious benefit here, we'll take his word for it, he should not persye a medical career if he can't tell fresh from mentrual blood.

So these parties you leave, they won't even walk you to the door when one of the guests semen is on your pants?

???

She was not only walked to the door, but she was accompanied home in a taxi.

What are you on about?

Well I was referring to venjur not being walked to the door of his parties but anyway.

Why didn't paddy Jackson, who had her blood from and internal laceration(caused by blunt force trauma) on his duvet walk her to the door given it was his house? Why didn't he call her to find out if she was ok?

If it was your sister or female friend would you prefer if she was involved in the Munster threesome or the Ulster threesome?

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

No, I think it just means it's showing up in the timelines of whatever accounts you are following.

My bad so!

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

It was a small and very intimate party. About as many guests as an average dinner party. And PJ was clearly awake.

One guest felt it incumbent on him to see the girl out and home. The same consideration seemd to have been lost on the host.

Think its fair to say you've never gone to a party in someone's house after a night out at 4am :pac:

Hurrache

Synode wrote: »

The players have suffered a total breach of their right to privacy.

But they techically haven't.

Rumours anyway that there was a financial settlement involved with the two players.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Again, I can only speak for myself. What tone am I using that you think I wouldn't use elsewhere?

That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that we don't always use only a single 'public facing' persona for each and every message we send elsewhere.

We (people) have multiple personas, multiple ways of interacting, multiple languages effectively that we use to interact with others on a private level.

If each and every message that you or I sent to anyone was read out and portrayed to have been written as though it were meant to be made public, I suspect we would both be in difficulty with a lot of people.

The question I asked was whether or not you think that you tone and texture messages differently on here, where they can be read by any and all, when compared to messages that you send to loved ones / friends / groups of friends etc.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Well I was referring to venjur not being walked to the door of his parties but anyway.

Why didn't paddy Jackson, who had her blood from and internal laceration(caused by blunt force trauma) on his duvet walk her to the door given it was his house? Why didn't he call her to find out if she was ok?

If it was your sister or female friend would you prefer if she was involved in the Munster threesome or the Ulster threesome?

Listen lad, stop making things up.

No blunt force trauma was proven. Digital penetration has a higher incidence of tearing. Jackson testified that he saw the blood, and didn't make a big deal out of it so as not to cause embarrassment.

If my sister had a threesome with two relative strangers, I wouldn't care who it was with. That's her business, if she was worried about being objectified in the aftermath in text messages she should pick better partners or partners she knows have some standards.

If she was raped, I'd want to murder them myself but beyond that people make their own decisions regarding their sex life.

The Black Stags

joseywhales wrote: »

sydthebeat wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

Man he is getting serious benefit here, we'll take his word for it, he should not persye a medical career if he can't tell fresh from mentrual blood.

So these parties you leave, they won't even walk you to the door when one of the guests semen is on your pants?

???

She was not only walked to the door, but she was accompanied home in a taxi.

What are you on about?

Well I was referring to venjur not being walked to the door of his parties but anyway.

Why didn't paddy Jackson, who had her blood from and internal laceration(caused by blunt force trauma) on his duvet walk her to the door given it was his house? Why didn't he call her to find out if she was ok?

If it was your sister or female friend would you prefer if she was involved in the Munster threesome or the Ulster threesome?

The 'laceration' you've been basing a lot of your comments on was disputed by a doctor; stop bringing it up as fact when it was disputed by someone with much more medical experience than you.

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

Yeah if you are a public figure it might be, you are representing the organisation and are high profile.

Like to have a girl back, have her leave with a bleeding injury, to avoid her, not check in or call and then boast about the night afterward is bad for a 19 year old but an experienced professional representative it's really bad. It also could be that this is not the first time and could be a behavioral pattern. I don't want one of the faces of my organisation out in my grassroots community behaving like that. He would make people hate Ulster rugby in the community.

I don't think it's good behaviour.

But do you genuinely think (only what you have written above) is enough to be a sackable offence?

Hurrache

Hurrache wrote: »

But they techically haven't.

Rumours anyway that there was a financial settlement involved with the two players.

I would be surprised if there wasn't. I don't think the IRFU have an easy case against them at all (in my opinion).

Oldings statement seems at odds with the notion that there was an agreement, but again it could all be optics to get this out of the way as cleanly as possible.

awec

Hurrache wrote: »

But they techically haven't.

Rumours anyway that there was a financial settlement involved with the two players.

Given the subsequent statements by Olding and Jackson I'd be surprised if there wasn't a payoff.

I suspect that both have been paid off, on the provision they both make apologetic statements and the IRFU get to announce it in a way that implies they were sacked.

Lackey

Are you seriously suggesting that 'showing disrespect'* for a person is enough to get you sacked? That it breaches a code of conduct to the extent that it is enough to have you lose your job?

I couldn't work in less high profile position than the one I do...
Its even in my low profile job contract that if I commit anything outside of work, personally, that is deemed to bring the company name into disrepute it will effect my employment.

awec

awec wrote: »

Given the subsequent statements by Olding and Jackson I'd be surprised if there wasn't a payoff.

I suspect that both have been paid off, on the provision they both make apologetic statements and the IRFU get to announce it in a way that implies they were sacked.

Yeah, that would make sense. It's a bit of a risk, if that choreography become public knowledge it could backfire.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There is a culture that is being stamped out currently:

https://twitter.com/eaamalyon/status/923121311248977921

Thanks. I don't think the poster was referring to this. I've asked them directly a question.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There was a post on reddit recently about someone trying to start a rugby team in a university over in the States and they were told by the university that they wouldn't get support because they did not want any 'rugby culture' on campus.

This has never really been a problem in Ireland. But that's how rugby is perceived even in areas where it is hardly played.

The other culture is a general awful attitude towards women amongst some men, which some people seem to think is acceptable because it is common amongst people (I assume) they know. Whereas in reality there should be divergence in the standards we set for our own behaviour and how widespread we believe that behaviour is.

This is an argument about perception. I am not too interested. I am talking about reality. Perception can match reality, so if the perception that you are positing exists is reality, lets talk about that. If not, the manner in which people/players/teams/organisations can 'correct' others' perceptions is a totally different conversation that I've not asked anything about.

irishbucsfan

Lackey wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that 'showing disrespect'* for a person is enough to get you sacked? That it breaches a code of conduct to the extent that it is enough to have you lose your job?

I couldn't work in less high profile position than the one I do...
Its even in my low profile job contract that if I commit anything outside of work, personally, that is deemed to bring the company name into disrepute it will effect my employment.

Absolutely right.

And of course people have been sacked for showing disrespect in the past. Happens in retail and hospitality around the world constantly.

And also there's an even more important difference. The players (according to Fanning) don't only have a clause protecting the IRFU's reptutation, they have a clause protecting their own reputation. This is crucial for those who think it would be remotely difficult for the IRFU to defend their decision in court.

Hurrache

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I would be surprised if there wasn't. I don't think the IRFU have an easy case against them at all (in my opinion).

awec wrote: »

Given the subsequent statements by Olding and Jackson I'd be surprised if there wasn't a payoff.

I think I heard a BBC reporter use the word 'substantial' when talking about it.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not what I am saying at all. I am saying that we don't always use only a single 'public facing' persona for each and every message we send elsewhere.

We (people) have multiple personas, multiple ways of interacting, multiple languages effectively that we use to interact with others on a private level.

If each and every message that you or I sent to anyone was read out and portrayed to have been written as though it were meant to be made public, I suspect we would both be in difficulty with a lot of people.

The question I asked was whether or not you think that you tone and texture messages differently on here, where they can be read by any and all, when compared to messages that you send to loved ones / friends / groups of friends etc.

Yes. I would have no problem with that being the case. Except where such tranmissions/conversations would have confidentiality implications.

In short. I don't say/type sh1t that I wouldn't say face to face and that I wouldn't like to be repeated or read by anyone else. Except in the case where it impinges on the confidentiality or privacy of third parties.

But then I've been involved in such discussions/communications that would have had implications if I didn't self-censor, for a very long time.

Lackey

Lackey wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that 'showing disrespect'* for a person is enough to get you sacked? That it breaches a code of conduct to the extent that it is enough to have you lose your job?

I couldn't work in less high profile position than the one I do...
Its even in my low profile job contract that if I commit anything outside of work, personally, that is deemed to bring the company name into disrepute it will effect my employment.

Yes. I am fully aware, most of us have these types of clauses. I think they are fair and fine.

However, my issue is with whether or not the criteria for bringing the company into disrepute can be met as 'simply' as the previous poster suggested. Do you think that the situation that the previous poster put forward 'meet the criteria' for bringing the company name into disrepute?

FrancieBrady

Deleted User wrote: »

Yeah, that would make sense. It's a bit of a risk, if that choreography become public knowledge it could backfire.

BBC reporter just on RTE saying there was a financial settlement according to his sources.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yes. I would have no problem with that being the case. Except where such tranmissions/conversations would have confidentiality implications.

In short. I don't say/type sh1t that I wouldn't say face to face and that I wouldn't like to be repeated or read by anyone else. Except in the case where it impinges on the confidentiality or privacy of third parties.

But then I've been involved in such discussions/communications that would have had implications if I didn't self-censor, for a very long time.

Cool. Do you think you're the norm or the minority in this attitude towards private conversation?

durthacht

Deleted User wrote: »

Hold on, let's think rationally here for a second. I am pointedly taking issue with particular statements for a reason, because I don't think people are thinking them through very well.



Are you seriously suggesting that 'showing disrespect'* for a person is enough to get you sacked? That it breaches a code of conduct to the extent that it is enough to have you lose your job?

*I am aware that I am isolating statements, and actually decontextualising the situation, but we have to be careful about setting precedents and stipulations that are ultimately utterly flawed here. I am also aware that PJ was also involved in court proceedings which could be judged to have brought Ulster Rugby / IRFU into disrepute.

I think their behaviour on the night and their subsequent WhatsApp conversations was deeply disrespectful, and certainly enough to violate a reasonable code of conduct. Whether the sanction should be termination or suspension is a judgement call, but in the real world where sponsors made their position clear then there really was no other sensible option for the IRFU.

I have been absolutely disgusted by the behaviour of Jackson and Olding, but I do think they have shown character and maturity to accept their dismissal and move on.

In time we will see this is the best solution for all concerned. This would have been a cloud hanging over Ulster and Irish rugby for as long as those two had remained involved so a new start is best for all concerned, including Jackson & Olding.

awec

Lackey wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that 'showing disrespect'* for a person is enough to get you sacked? That it breaches a code of conduct to the extent that it is enough to have you lose your job?

I couldn't work in less high profile position than the one I do...
Its even in my low profile job contract that if I commit anything outside of work, personally, that is deemed to bring the company name into disrepute it will effect my employment.

I think the point is it's not what you do, it's what ends up being broadcast to the world.

If there had been no allegation of rape (which it turns out didn't happen) PJ and SO would not have had an ounce of attention. Private conversations would have remained private. The threesome / bad text messages would have had no effect on their careers.

So the question is, I wonder how many other high profile sports men, or even average enough blokes, are lucky that they've never had their private conversations made public.

joseywhales

The Black Stags wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

sydthebeat wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

Man he is getting serious benefit here, we'll take his word for it, he should not persye a medical career if he can't tell fresh from mentrual blood.

So these parties you leave, they won't even walk you to the door when one of the guests semen is on your pants?

???

She was not only walked to the door, but she was accompanied home in a taxi.

What are you on about?

Well I was referring to venjur not being walked to the door of his parties but anyway.

Why didn't paddy Jackson, who had her blood from and internal laceration(caused by blunt force trauma) on his duvet walk her to the door given it was his house? Why didn't he call her to find out if she was ok?

If it was your sister or female friend would you prefer if she was involved in the Munster threesome or the Ulster threesome?

The 'laceration' you've been basing a lot of your comments on was disputed by a doctor; stop bringing it up as fact when it was disputed by someone with much more medical experience than you.

Listen 'lad'

What are you talking about Dr Phillip lavery literally said there was a 1cm laceration caused by blunt force trauma.

He did not conclude that it was caused by non consenual sex and neither did I.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks. I don't think the poster was referring to this. I've asked them directly a question.


This is an argument about perception. I am not too interested. I am talking about reality. Perception can match reality, so if the perception that you are positing exists is reality, lets talk about that. If not, the manner in which people/players/teams/organisations can 'correct' others' perceptions is a totally different conversation that I've not asked anything about.

The IRFU obviously cannot ignore perception, so it'd be a bit of a waste of time to ignore it when discussing their decisions.

We can't control perception, however we can control our own actions and they will directly shape perception. And to the extent which we can control perception through those means, we are responsible for it. The IRFU are taking steps in exactly that direction now.

durthacht

durthacht wrote: »

I think their behaviour on the night and their subsequent WhatsApp conversations was deeply disrespectful, and certainly enough to violate a reasonable code of conduct. Whether the sanction should be termination or suspension is a judgement call, but in the real world where sponsors made their position clear then there really was no other sensible option for the IRFU.

I have been absolutely disgusted by the behaviour of Jackson and Olding, but I do think they have shown character and maturity to accept their dismissal and move on.

In time we will see this is the best solution for all concerned. This would have been a cloud hanging over Ulster and Irish rugby for as long as those two had remained involved so a new start is best for all concerned, including Jackson & Olding.

Please lay out a case to be made for Jackson's sacking based upon his conduct that night (provable or otherwise) and subsequently.

I don't believe it is anywhere near as trivial as you are making it out to be.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Cool. Do you think you're the norm or the minority in this attitude towards private conversation?

I honestly don't know. I certainly haven't received any communications that I can remember that would have raised my eyebrows. And I communicate with people of all age groups regularly.

joseywhales

Deleted User wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

Well I was referring to venjur not being walked to the door of his parties but anyway.

Why didn't paddy Jackson, who had her blood from and internal laceration(caused by blunt force trauma) on his duvet walk her to the door given it was his house? Why didn't he call her to find out if she was ok?

If it was your sister or female friend would you prefer if she was involved in the Munster threesome or the Ulster threesome?

Listen lad, stop making things up.

No blunt force trauma was proven. Digital penetration has a higher incidence of tearing. Jackson testified that he saw the blood, and didn't make a big deal out of it so as not to cause embarrassment.

If my sister had a threesome with two relative strangers, I wouldn't care who it was with. That's her business, if she was worried about being objectified in the aftermath in text messages she should pick better partners or partners she knows have some standards.

If she was raped, I'd want to murder them myself but beyond that people make their own decisions regarding their sex life.

It was proven 'lad', one cm laceration caused by blunt force trauma as stated by dr.phillip lavery in court.
It was not proven to be non consensual nor was the timeline established but I did not make statements in that.