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

Squatter

Paul Smeenus wrote: »

If the case was never going to go any other way, it should never have been taken to trial.

Perhaps not; but given that the incident was so widely known about, how do you reckon that the media would have reacted to that?

Feel free to give full vent to your imagination!

Former Former

errlloyd wrote: »

Someone posted earlier that the only way the men return is if the complainant apologises to them.

You misread this - they said "if the complainant forgives them".

If I apologize to you, then I'm in the wrong. If I forgive you, then you're in the wrong. Very different scenarios.

I don't see how either happens without the complainant giving up her anonymity so wouldn't worry about it either way.

errlloyd

Former Former wrote: »

You misread this - they said "if the complainant forgives them".

If I apologize to you, then I'm in the wrong. If I forgive you, then you're in the wrong. Very different scenarios.

I don't see how either happens without the complainant giving up her anonymity so wouldn't worry about it either way.

Well pointed out! Apologies to the original poster.

awec

Squatter wrote: »

Perhaps not; but given that the incident was so widely known about, how do you reckon that the media would have reacted to that?

Feel free to give full vent to your imagination!

I would say the two lads would have enjoyed a good 1/2 season with Ulster and there'd have been a fraction of the uproar.

This whole scenario has only raised its head because the case went to trial and what was once private was made public.

bilston

Buer wrote: »

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Exeter are denying any contact with Olding as of date, be interesting to see if anything does come out of it.

It's interesting that the denial was so forceful. I think we'll see this happen with one or two other teams and wouldn't be surprised if they're leaking a story to test the waters on the public reaction.

Someone somewhere will take them. They just need to get that first contract and start playing again.

Worst case scenario they go to the Championship and then in 12 months time there will be far far less crap surrounding them and then they can maybe move to the Premiership or Top 14.

Squidgy Black

awec wrote: »

I would say the two lads would have enjoyed a good 1/2 season with Ulster and there'd have been a fraction of the uproar.

This whole scenario has only raised its head because the case went to trial and what was once private was made public.

I think this is the most important part. Since the verdict of the trial came out, the goalposts have shifted from the incident, to the messages being the crux of the social media convictions. If you remove the messages from the situation, the out-roar becomes a lot more subtle and there's no fuel behind the fire.

A lot of the general public weren't aware of the accusations at all until the trial hit the news headlines. No more than the Munster situation, I can guarantee you that 90% of the general public has no idea/recollection of what happened there.

launish116

I forgot about Nelson.

A post season and pre season will hopefully help Curtis get ready physically. He seems to cope ok at U20 level in attack.

Angus (?) Kernohan is another possible wing option who will probably get a chance next season with Stockdale away and Lyttle being injury prone.

Is David Busby still in the squad?

Poor Aaron Cairns seems to have been forgotten about.

Nelson has pace and with a chance to lock a position down he actually wants to play could do well.
Cairns is the epitome of Ulster rugby excels in a hard game never to be seen again. Also has pace and iIthought he looked hungry, just didn't think he had the pass for scrum half.
Busby is still here, just don't think he'll progress sadly.
Can't say I know anything about Kernohan, will see an eye out now though.
I really do think academy is starting to produce though. 
Just need the Ulster PR wagon to throw us some good news

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

It's not contradictory.

You cannot say the logic to arrive at two different conclusions to two entirely different things is contradictory. That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Your entire argument is based on something that just doesn't add up.

"If you refuse to argue against the court case then you can't argue against the IRFU decision because that's a contradiction" is rubbish.

Yep, no interest in understanding the point....oh well...

tototoe

Can't believe Ulster fans honestly believed that with all that was revealed in the court case, that the two lads would just waltz back in to the Ulster or Irish teams. Was never going to happen. The WhatsApps etc were enough to kill that idea off from the get go. Anyone who thinks the content of those messages was acceptable in public or private needs a reality check. Those days are gone...or at least should be.

damianmcr

Then why Gilroy then?

molloyjh

Squidgy Black wrote: »

I think this is the most important part. Since the verdict of the trial came out, the goalposts have shifted from the incident, to the messages being the crux of the social media convictions. If you remove the messages from the situation, the out-roar becomes a lot more subtle and there's no fuel behind the fire.

A lot of the general public weren't aware of the accusations at all until the trial hit the news headlines. No more than the Munster situation, I can guarantee you that 90% of the general public has no idea/recollection of what happened there.

In the Munster case a woman wasn't left alone, crying and bleeding, by the guys involved. They may have been found not guilty in the trial, but we know for a fact that they used this woman to get their kicks and treated her like garbage when they were done. They didn't show her an ounce of decency or compassion. The texts were the insult to the injury.

How anyone here can be okay with people like that representing them in any way, but most especially as role models to children, totally escapes me. What is known cannot be un-known. And once this all became known the IRFU and UR had to act.

If you make your living in the public eye then you need to accept the consequences when you behave in ways that are (or at the very least should be) socially unacceptable. Anyone who disagrees is basically condoning that behaviour. And I'd worry for anyone who does that, because if anyone treated my sisters, my daughter or my female friends like that I'd feel sick to my stomach.

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

In the Munster case a woman wasn't left alone, crying and bleeding, by the guys involved. They may have been found not guilty in the trial, but we know for a fact that they used this woman to get their kicks and treated her like garbage when they were done. They didn't show her an ounce of decency or compassion. The texts were the insult to the injury.

How anyone here can be okay with people like that representing them in any way, but most especially as role models to children, totally escapes me. What is known cannot be un-known. And once this all became known the IRFU and UR had to act.

If you make your living in the public eye then you need to accept the consequences when you behave in ways that are (or at the very least should be) socially unacceptable. Anyone who disagrees is basically condoning that behaviour. And I'd worry for anyone who does that, because if anyone treated my sisters, my daughter or my female friends like that I'd feel sick to my stomach.

I think you have a misunderstanding of the events in question.

For what it's worth too, the female in the Munster incident was in the papers afterwards saying she felt like a broken woman. We have no idea what went on there, what was private stayed private.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

I think you have a misunderstanding of the events in question.

What part(s)?

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

What part(s)?

She wasn't left alone, she was brought home. The bringing her home formed such a large part of the trial that I am surprised anyone could think otherwise.

The blood was believed to be menstrual blood.

The goalpost shifting is never ending in this. Firstly they needed to be sacked cause they apparently raped her. Then it was because of the text messages. Then it was because they had casual threesome sex at a house party and this is socially unacceptable or something.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

She wasn't left alone, she was brought home. The bringing her home formed such a large part of the trial that I am surprised anyone could think otherwise.

The blood was believed to be menstrual blood.

The goalpost shifting is never ending in this. Firstly they needed to be sacked cause they apparently raped her. Then it was because of the text messages. Then it was because they had casual threesome sex at a house party and this is socially unacceptable or something.

She went home in a taxi after one of the guys who wasn't initially involved tried to look after her. Where were Olding and Jackson for that?

The blood was believed to be menstrual? By who? The players? Did they ask? Did she tell them that?

Jesus awec, you're impossible to discuss things with. You just twist what people say to suit yourself regardless of how accurately or not it represents what was actually said. I never said anything about being sacked because they had a threesome. Anywhere. Ever. Why can you not discuss what is written? Surely you should be setting a better standard than this?

bilston

Interesting comments from Paddy Wallace this morning.

He said that a lot of Ulster supporters are very unhappy and some may not renew and added that maybe the IRFU statement could have been less vague (I imagine their statement was vetted to ends of the earth) but he went to say that from a financial POV it was a no brainer of a decision. I believe he works in the FS industry now. He stated that £3m comes in through ticket sales and £12m from sponsors each year (not sure where he got those figures from or whether they are for Ulster or the IRFU in general) but basically the point is sponsors are VERY important.

errlloyd

awec wrote: »

The blood was believed to be menstrual blood.
.

That is not accurate. The defense expert witness was unable to rule out the blood was menstrual, even though the evidence strongly suggested it was from the laceration. But at no stage did the jury state that they believed it was menstrual.

It's another example of someone believing the trial came to a conclusion when it didn't.

awec

molloyjh wrote: »

She went home in a taxi after one of the guys who wasn't initially involved tried to look after her. Where were Olding and Jackson for that?

The blood was believed to be menstrual? By who? The players? Did they ask? Did she tell them that?

Jesus awec, you're impossible to discuss things with. You just twist what people say to suit yourself regardless of how accurately or not it represents what was actually said. I never said anything about being sacked because they had a threesome. Anywhere. Ever. Why can you not discuss what is written? Surely you should be setting a better standard than this?

I'm not twisting anything. Every time I refute something you say you decide you meant something else!

I don't know if people are being obtuse or are incredibly naive.

The two men had a threesome, they believed there was nothing out of the ordinary. Indeed, there was literally a female eye witness who witnessed events and saw nothing out of the ordinary. There was blood, believed to be menstrual blood, nothing was said of this. Why would they bring her home? Why would they see her to the door?

Now, I don't think their behaviour is great, but nor is it as bad as being made out. The faux outrage over this is quite ridiculous sometimes, and at other times outright hypocritical. People up in arms about this making excuses for previous incidents. People up in arms about this had no issue when Leinster signed a player with a questionable history towards women.

I am sure that every single person up in arms about this has never, ever been in a chat group where something inappropriate has been said, and they always give their sexual partners breakfast and a lift home after a one night stand at a house party.

prawnsambo

errlloyd wrote: »

That is not accurate. The defense expert witness was unable to rule out the blood was menstrual, even though the evidence strongly suggested it was from the laceration. But at no stage did the jury state that they believed it was menstrual.

It's another example of someone believing the trial came to a conclusion when it didn't.

I think he means believed by PJ and SO. Or at least PJ mentioned it in his evidence so maybe just him.

Former Former

bilston wrote: »

Interesting comments from Paddy Wallace this morning.

He said that a lot of Ulster supporters are very unhappy and some may not renew and added that maybe the IRFU statement could have been less vague (I imagine their statement was vetted to ends of the earth) but he went to say that from a financial POV it was a no brainer of a decision. I believe he works in the FS industry now. He stated that £3m comes in through ticket sales and £12m from sponsors each year (not sure where he got those figures from or whether they are for Ulster or the IRFU in general) but basically the point is sponsors are VERY important.

It had to be. Nothing Jackson or Olding have done deprives them of their rights under employment law, so for Ulster/IRFU to make any details public would be a breach of their own legal obligations and the rights of the players.

Net effect: compensation payout for the two boys, and another stick for people to beat IRFU with.

We've heard as much as we're going to hear, officially at least.

damianmcr

I dont understand how their was blood on her knickers when Paddy supposedly took these off and she did not put them back in after.

Any who we could have a separate thread for this.

When does Barret land? Heard we told Pollard to do one.



.......

prawnsambo

awec wrote: »

I'm not twisting anything. Every time I refute something you say you decide you meant something else!

I don't know if people are being obtuse or are incredibly naive.

The two men had a threesome, they believed there was nothing out of the ordinary. Indeed, there was literally a female eye witness who witnessed events and saw nothing out of the ordinary. There was blood, believed to be menstrual blood, nothing was said of this. Why would they bring her home? Why would they see her to the door?

One of their group saw what a state she was in and took it upon himself to bring her home. I think this was when she was still in the house, something they may not have been aware of, but it does smack of the 'used and discarded' label. The witness saw something that Jackson denied was happening, so that's not as clear as you seem to think it was.

Former Former

awec wrote: »

People up in arms about this had no issue when Leinster signed a player with a questionable history towards women.

Ah here. Does everything have to be an interprovincial cockfight.

Are you talking about Te'o? It couldn't be more different, if so.

molloyjh

awec wrote: »

I'm not twisting anything. Every time I refute something you say you decide you meant something else!

Please point to where I said that they should be fired for having a threesome. Come on, time to s**t or get off the pot. I'm actually not going to let this one go. You're either deliberately misrepresenting me to suit yourself or you're actively making no effort to understand what I'm saying, and then claiming I'm somehow being obtuse.

For the record, here's my post. The word threesome doesn't even appear in it. The fact that there was a threesome isn't even mentioned directly. The point is about how they treated the woman in question, not about the threesome at all.

molloyjh wrote: »

In the Munster case a woman wasn't left alone, crying and bleeding, by the guys involved. They may have been found not guilty in the trial, but we know for a fact that they used this woman to get their kicks and treated her like garbage when they were done. They didn't show her an ounce of decency or compassion. The texts were the insult to the injury.

How anyone here can be okay with people like that representing them in any way, but most especially as role models to children, totally escapes me. What is known cannot be un-known. And once this all became known the IRFU and UR had to act.

If you make your living in the public eye then you need to accept the consequences when you behave in ways that are (or at the very least should be) socially unacceptable. Anyone who disagrees is basically condoning that behaviour. And I'd worry for anyone who does that, because if anyone treated my sisters, my daughter or my female friends like that I'd feel sick to my stomach.

If you can't find reference to me ever saying they should be fired for having a threesome then please acknowledge as much.

Hands Like Flippers

bilston wrote: »

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

Bilston

Think we might get a few good additions to the Academy from school leavers this year as well.

Houston, Sexton and Moore? Unlikely they are going to feature in the senior team next season though.

I know there is definitely a decent bunch of players coming through but even two or three injuries to our backs next season, especially with Stockdale going to be away for large parts, and we could be struggling a bit.

Agreed.

Section has another year at school.

awec

Former Former wrote: »

Ah here. Does everything have to be an interprovincial cockfight.

Are you talking about Te'o? It couldn't be more different, if so.

In what way?

What Teo allegedly did is ok but what PJ + SO allegedly did is not?

errlloyd

awec wrote: »

In what way?

What Teo allegedly did is ok but what PJ + SO allegedly did is not?

Eh assault is a lesser crime, and there wasn't even enough evidence to charge him, nevermind prosecute him. He reported the incident himself the morning after.

And even, despite all that, I still wouldn't have taken him if I'd know and if it was my choice.

prawnsambo

awec wrote: »

In what way?

What Teo allegedly did is ok but what PJ + SO allegedly did is not?

Sorry awec, but if you're going to use whataboutery then it's fair game to suggest (on the same basis) that the two lads shouldn't get employment elsewhere either. Which I'm not saying btw.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

In what way?

What Teo allegedly did is ok but what PJ + SO allegedly did is not?

One is sexual assault, one is assault which was supposedly in self defense. One was brought to trial by police, the other was dropped by police. Why are we even trying to compare these things, its desperate stuff?

Hands Like Flippers

I would like to see Trimble again. I don't know if he has fallen off a cliff or not as haven't seen him play.

Cave didn't play for ages but when he did he played well.