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

Digifriendly

Brian Moore has interesting aricle in Daily Telegraph re the whole issue. There is a brief summary on this link as you have to register to read full DT article -
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/decision-to-sack-jackson-and-olding-the-right-move-says-exinternational-moore-36813927.html

Hands Like Flippers

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

To change the subject quite a bit...

On Saturday week the Ulster Society of Rugby Football Referees (USRFR) are holding their annual Dinner in the Great Northern Hotel Bundoran.
Not news at all normally but its the first time the dinner has ever been held outside of the 6 counties.

If Ulster really want to progress on the pitch they need to do more things like this and bring them outside the 6...

I agree LS but would have to say that on the ground I have not really noticed an issue. I think we are all glad to see the players from whatever enjoying the game.

tretorn

The sins of all men are being heaped on their shoulders and thats a lot of weight for such young men to carry.
Olding was only twenty two, people are forgetting that.
Yes, he drank too much and so did Jackson, both did things they never would have done sober but they didnt rape anyone.
All young men and their parents who guide them need to keep this case in mind, jackson and olding could very easily be our sons.
If any would makes an allegation against you she will automatically be believed, thats the default position. Even if there is no evidence a case will be made and its not until you get to court that gour innocence can be established.
The jurys verdict wont be worth didly squat in the face of social media warriers ably backed up by their friends in the biased media, we live in dangerous times and there are too many cowardly people who wont stand up and be counted.
The only people to emerge with dignity after this whole sorry mess are the judge and the jury and Dara Florence the independent witness, all dragged into this debacle by other peoples drunken orgy.

molloyjh

tretorn wrote: »

The jurys verdict wont be worth didly squat in the face of social media warriers ably backed up by their friends in the biased media, we live in dangerous times and there are too many cowardly people who wont stand up and be counted.

What utter drivel. None of the men charged are now in prison, so the jurys verdict stands unchallenged and will continue to do so.

I can't help but think there were reactions like this to the idea of equality of gender and race. There needs to be a real change in how some men talk about, treat and act towards women. And if society as a whole doesn't "stand up and be counted" when another human being is treated so appallingly by public figures then we really do live in "dangerous times". :rolleyes:

Synode

molloyjh wrote: »

What utter drivel. None of the men charged are now in prison, so the jurys verdict stands unchallenged and will continue to do so.

I can't help but think there were reactions like this to the idea of equality of gender and race. There needs to be a real change in how some men talk about, treat and act towards women. And if society as a whole doesn't "stand up and be counted" when another human being is treated so appallingly by public figures then we really do live in "dangerous times". :rolleyes:

Men will be getting lynched soon for one night stands if there isn't a breakfast the next morning :rolleyes:

irishbucsfan

Synode wrote: »

Men will be getting lynched soon for one night stands if there isn't a breakfast the next morning :rolleyes:

Have you ever considered, maybe, talking to a woman?

Might help you understand what they are actually upset about instead of coming out with absolutely ridiculous statements like this!

Synode

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Have you ever considered, maybe, talking to a woman?

Might help you understand what they are actually upset about instead of coming out with absolutely ridiculous statements like this!

Of course I've talked to women about this case. My OH is appalled at the treatment of the 4 lads more so than the woman. Mainly because the punishment is completely out of kilter with what occurred. Jackson and Olding had what is now legally regarded as a consensual sexual encounter with the woman. Then went to bed. The woman went home. So where is this appalling treatment that people are talking about? It's completely over the top. Same as some of the condescending attitudes towards people who think they didn't really do anything wrong (see your post above)

molloyjh

Synode wrote: »

Of course I've talked to women about this case. My OH is appalled at the treatment of the 4 lads more so than the woman. Mainly because the punishment is completely out of kilter with what occurred. Jackson and Olding had what is now legally regarded as a consensual sexual encounter with the woman. Then went to bed. The woman went home. So where is this appalling treatment that people are talking about? It's completely over the top. Same as some of the condescending attitudes towards people who think they didn't really do anything wrong (see your post above)

Yeah that isn't a massive oversimplification at all. Sure who care about the bleeding and the crying and the lack of any empathy from the 2 lads in question, let alone the crude discussion by texts after the crying and the bleeding? Sure they didn't rape her, so it's all grand.

foxyladyxx

Synode wrote: »

Of course I've talked to women about this case. My OH is appalled at the treatment of the 4 lads more so than the woman. Mainly because the punishment is completely out of kilter with what occurred. Jackson and Olding had what is now legally regarded as a consensual sexual encounter with the woman. Then went to bed. The woman went home. So where is this appalling treatment that people are talking about? It's completely over the top. Same as some of the condescending attitudes towards people who think they didn't really do anything wrong (see your post above)

I too am all woman and I agree 100% with Synode above/ These guys have suffered enough and rugby ,Ulster Rugby in particular, has been dealt a huge blow.

Of course I also feel for the alleged victim in this case but am sure she is getting the help she needs to move on with her life.

5 young people's lives destroyed and 5 families who will forever bear those scars.

The verdict was unanimously ''not guilty'' but that appears to have mattered not one whit.

irishbucsfan

Synode wrote: »

Of course I've talked to women about this case. My OH is appalled at the treatment of the 4 lads more so than the woman. Mainly because the punishment is completely out of kilter with what occurred. Jackson and Olding had what is now legally regarded as a consensual sexual encounter with the woman. Then went to bed. The woman went home. So where is this appalling treatment that people are talking about? It's completely over the top. Same as some of the condescending attitudes towards people who think they didn't really do anything wrong (see your post above)

Apart from your misunderstanding of the legal system, what you're saying is you haven't taken the time to discuss this with someone "from the other side". Obviously I'm in the wrong for saying "a woman" but you should take the time to sit down, preferably over a pint, and talk with someone who disagrees with you on why their behaviour was wrong.

molloyjh

foxyladyxx wrote: »

I too am all woman and I agree 100% with Synode above/ These guys have suffered enough and rugby ,Ulster Rugby in particular, has been dealt a huge blow.

Of course I also feel for the alleged victim in this case but am sure she is getting the help she needs to move on with her life.

5 young people's lives destroyed and 5 families who will forever bear those scars.

The verdict was unanimously ''not guilty'' but that appears to have mattered not one whit.

Except it mattered 100%, in 100% of the ways it can and should matter. They aren't in jail and no criminal charges are outstanding. That's all that the verdict had any power over.

molloyjh

It's also worth pointing out that Ulster would probably have been dealt a much larger blow had they not acted in the way that they had. BoI pulling their sponsorship would have been huge and finding another sponsor in that scenario would have been difficult.

Synode

molloyjh wrote: »

Yeah that isn't a massive oversimplification at all. Sure who care about the bleeding and the crying and the lack of any empathy from the 2 lads in question, let alone the crude discussion by texts after the crying and the bleeding?

The bleeding - well for starters was it menstrual or not? Nobody knows. If it did occur during the act then so be it. These things happen all the time during sex. So what's the big deal?

Lack of empathy - how so?

As for the texts - some of them crude and probably in bad taste yes, but they were in a private chat and as far as I'm concerned, nobody's business. Also, Jackson's texts themselves are innocuous

Synode

Synode wrote: »

Of course I've talked to women about this case. My OH is appalled at the treatment of the 4 lads more so than the woman. Mainly because the punishment is completely out of kilter with what occurred. Jackson and Olding had what is now legally regarded as a consensual sexual encounter with the woman. Then went to bed. The woman went home. So where is this appalling treatment that people are talking about? It's completely over the top. Same as some of the condescending attitudes towards people who think they didn't really do anything wrong (see your post above)

This isn't the case. It wasn't proved that it was criminal, that is all.

On 'thought crime' and changing attitudes, change takes time, telling people to change how they think has never worked.

I'm of the opinion that Olding, Jackson and Gilroy like other people their age will grow out of these attitudes and this behaviour. Someone asked me how I'd feel if it was my sister they were talking about. I'd say that if my sister hangs out with people who don't respect her, that's down to her for choosing poor friends or partners.

Now if they force her into something she doesn't consent to, that's different, but that hasn't been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

I really don't know what's wrong with just saying "some people are assholes and I choose not to associate with them" rather than "we need to stand up to these attitudes". Attitudes change, but not by poking people righteously with a morality stick.

If someone is an asshole in private and a role model in public so what? I've met plenty of people that are considered role models and I thought they were absolutely toxic.

foxyladyxx

molloyjh wrote: »

Except it mattered 100%, in 100% of the ways it can and should matter. They aren't in jail and no criminal charges are outstanding. That's all that the verdict had any power over.

Their names will forever be linked synonymous with the ''rape trial'' .. that is all people will remember.

They have lost their livelihood and their good names and have to now leave the country to play rugby and likely will never play for Ireland again.

Synode

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Apart from your misunderstanding of the legal system, what you're saying is you haven't taken the time to discuss this with someone "from the other side". Obviously I'm in the wrong for saying "a woman" but you should take the time to sit down, preferably over a pint, and talk with someone who disagrees with you on why their behaviour was wrong.

I've talked with many people irishbucsfan over many pints. Most are in agreement they did nothing wrong. Most of those who think they did do something wrong still think a rape occurred.

So if you can shed some light on 'why their behaviour was wrong' instead of skirting around what you think that would be great

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

Yeah that isn't a massive oversimplification at all. Sure who care about the bleeding and the crying and the lack of any empathy from the 2 lads in question, let alone the crude discussion by texts after the crying and the bleeding? Sure they didn't rape her, so it's all grand.

And this is a massive exaggeration Molloy.

There is no evidence to suggest they didn't care about the bleeding and it's unclear when the alleged victim started crying. It's entirely possible they had no idea about the state of the claimant because there is no evidence that they saw her distressed.

We don't know what the demeanour of the alleged victim was like the last time Olding and Jackson saw her so reading into it the way you have is disingenuous.

molloyjh

Synode wrote: »

The bleeding - well for starters was it menstrual or not? Nobody knows. If it did occur during the act then so be it. These things happen all the time during sex. So what's the big deal?

Lack of empathy - how so?

As for the texts - some of them crude and probably in bad taste yes, but they were in a private chat and as far as I'm concerned, nobody's business. Also, Jackson's texts themselves are innocuous

The menstrual thing is a complete cop out. Nothing more. A nice tidy thing people can fall back on to save them from not looking like they don't care about the well being of another individual. If there was blood, then some consideration should have been shown. It was ignored. And when combined with the fact that the woman in question was also crying while in the house, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out someone needed help. That's where the empathy comes into it.

The texts on their own were just bad taste and a rap on the knuckles would be appropriate there. But in light of the bleeding and the crying it takes on a new context.

As for "private chat", what is known cannot be unknown. Whether it was private or not before doesn't matter. It's in the public domain now and can't be ignored.

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

And this is a massive exaggeration Molloy.

There is no evidence to suggest they didn't care about the bleeding and it's unclear when the alleged victim started crying. It's entirely possible they had no idea about the state of the claimant because there is no evidence that they saw her distressed.

We don't know what the demeanour of the alleged victim was like the last time Olding and Jackson saw her so reading into it the way you have is disingenuous.

Harrison saw her in the state she was in, and that was in the house wasn't it? Where were the others then? We know Jackson saw the blood too don't we? He said as much, and claimed he thought it was menstrual and was trying not to embarrass her by ignoring it.

Synode

Deleted User wrote: »

This isn't the case. It wasn't proved that it was criminal, that is all.

I don't buy this Venjur. If the encounter isn't regarded as criminal by the jury then by default, they must have regarded it as consensual. There's simply no other option

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I really don't know what's wrong with just saying "some people are assholes and I choose not to associate with them" rather than "we need to stand up to these attitudes". Attitudes change, but not by poking people righteously with a morality stick.

To be fair, is this not exactly what Irish rugby is doing?

molloyjh

Synode wrote: »

I don't buy this Venjur. If the encounter isn't regarded as criminal by the jury then by default, they must have regarded it as consensual. There's simply no other option

Completely false. Being unable to prove rape does not mean consent. That's like saying I robbed your car, but because a court couldn't prove it you must have lent it to me. Proper nonsense.

irishbucsfan

Synode wrote: »

I've talked with many people irishbucsfan over many pints. Most are in agreement they did nothing wrong. Most of those who think they did do something wrong still think a rape occurred.

So if you can shed some light on 'why their behaviour was wrong' instead of skirting around what you think that would be great

I think their behaviour was atrocious for exactly the reasons molloyjh is describing, it doesn't really need repeating.

Paul Smeenus

molloyjh wrote: »

foxyladyxx wrote: »

I too am all woman and I agree 100% with Synode above/ These guys have suffered enough and rugby ,Ulster Rugby in particular, has been dealt a huge blow.

Of course I also feel for the alleged victim in this case but am sure she is getting the help she needs to move on with her life.

5 young people's lives destroyed and 5 families who will forever bear those scars.

The verdict was unanimously ''not guilty'' but that appears to have mattered not one whit.

Except it mattered 100%, in 100% of the ways it can and should matter. They aren't in jail and no criminal charges are outstanding. That's all that the verdict had any power over.

Well, no. There is a wider social fallout fir them based on how emotive the crime is, which is PRECISELY why the accused aren't named in the South - to avoid that.

Synode

Synode wrote: »

I don't buy this Venjur. If the encounter isn't regarded as criminal by the jury then by default, they must have regarded it as consensual. There's simply no other option

No, it wasn't proved to be criminal. No one asked for it to be proven to be consensual, that wasn't the question that was asked. If the burden of proof had moved to the defendants, I think they would have difficulty proving beyond a reasonable doubt that it was consensual.

This is one of the main reasons why the burden of proof generally rests with the accuser.

monkeybutter

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Apart from your misunderstanding of the legal system, what you're saying is you haven't taken the time to discuss this with someone "from the other side". Obviously I'm in the wrong for saying "a woman" but you should take the time to sit down, preferably over a pint, and talk with someone who disagrees with you on why their behaviour was wrong.

How about 20 pints, you two could be go back to Synodes after, fireworks!!!!

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

To be fair, is this not exactly what Irish rugby is doing?

Not really. The players have apologised for their behaviour. If their attitudes have changed and they are sorry then the IRFU could equally be pointing to them as examples of individuals ability to change and remedy their attitudes. Is this not also what people seem to want?

They played on for a year after the accusation let's not forget.

The IRFU's hands were tied the second those messages were made public. By all accounts people thought the players could just be sacked, the reports of substantial payouts close to contract value suggest that as employers they were limited in what they could do.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

Harrison saw her in the state she was in, and that was in the house wasn't it? Where were the others then? We know Jackson saw the blood too don't we? He said as much, and claimed he thought it was menstrual and was trying not to embarrass her by ignoring it.

There is no evidence that Jackson or Olding saw the complainant upset. There is evidence that they were aware of the blood but presumed it was menstrual.

There is evidence that after the complainant left that she was upset and by all accounts I don't think they cared, but they also knew that Harrison was bringing her home and making sure she was ok. Again, maybe this was the first step in a cover up and Harrison was the 'fixer', but there isn't proof of that.

Olding appears to have been barely conscious throughout to be honest, he cleaned off and passed out and provided no evidence of anything after this fact.

Jackson's evidence was that when people were going asleep or had already left he came down to lock up.

Again though - there is no evidence that they knew the complainant was upset before she left, they were aware of the bleeding, but they thought it was a badly timed period.

Certainly though - this is not accurate by anyone's accounts to be honest, it's very misleading imagery:

molloyjh wrote:

Sure who care about the bleeding and the crying and the lack of any empathy from the 2 lads in question

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really. The players have apologised for their behaviour. If their attitudes have changed and they are sorry then the IRFU could equally be pointing to them as examples of individuals ability to change and remedy their attitudes. Is this not also what people seem to want?

They played on for a year after the accusation let's not forget.

The IRFU's hands were tied the second those messages were made public. By all accounts people thought the players could just be sacked, the reports of substantial payouts close to contract value suggest that as employers they were limited in what they could do.

They really weren't limited, which is why they were sacked. The payoff closes up loose ends but there's no doubt the IRFU were entitled to terminate their contract or else they'll be in court soon I'm sure.

You almost had it exactly right there for a second, when you said that people are completely within their rights to decide who they will/won't associate with. That's at the core of all of this, and it's important that people don't make the decision not to associate with the sport because of the reputation of those involved in it, which happens elsewhere unfortunately. The IRFU's decision should be enough to head that off at the pass, and I'm happy enough with that because it's a reputation I don't think we deserve.

awec

The words "rape", "blood" and "tears" are what fueled this frenzy. Not many people have stepped back and looked at this from any angle other than PJ and SO being misogynist pigs who treat women like garbage or something.

1. They are not guilty of rape, the courts very kindly sorted this question out for us.
2. There is an explanation as to why the blood was ignored at the time and whether people like to admit it or not it's a feasible and believable reason
3. There is no suggestion whatsoever that either Olding or Jackson had any clue that the girl was distressed leaving the house that night.

Then there is the text messages, which are not great but also not as heinous as being made out. Jackson has got a very raw deal on this particular issue.


Now, you certainly would not hold up these events from start to finish as a beacon of how to go about your private sex life, but on the other hand the criticism here has got incredibly hyperbolic.