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

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

You say this as if you know this.

When people say "sacked", they don't mean "have the value of their contracts paid up". The difference is subtle, but important.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

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 blood wasn't ignored, it was deemed to be something it might not have been. It's only a 'cop out' if you want to dismiss it, but realistically it's a pretty reasonable explanation.

As I've pointed out, we don't know that Jackson or Olding saw her while upset. You are making incorrect assumptions yourself with this.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

You say this as if you know this.

When people say "sacked", they don't mean "have the value of their contracts paid up". The difference is subtle, but important.

When people are sacked, i.e. they have their contracts revoked, then people say "sacked".

There is a reason they said their contract were revoked. That's a very specific and important part of that press release.

Look, I've been explaining why they were exactly entitled to do what they did for a while now, no point going over the same ground again. No one will ever know any more anyway.

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

When people are sacked, i.e. they have their contracts revoked, then people say "sacked".

There is a reason they said their contract were revoked. That's a very specific and important part of that press release.

Look, I've been explaining why they were exactly entitled to do what they did for a while now, no point going over the same ground again. No one will ever know any more anyway.

Yes, for PR.

Contracts revoked is a very weird way of saying "contracts paid up almost in full". But if they said "the two lads are being paid out of their contract" I can only imagine the social media frenzy.

molloyjh

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?

An apology does not amends or change make. At the end of the day this sort of behaviour needs to be socially unacceptable. That means that at some stage society needs to visibly change it's attitude in relation to this sort of thing. And that is happening. There was always likely going to be a case where you could point to that change fairly definitively. This is probably that case. Is it harsh on the lads in the sense of had they done it 5 years earlier things might have gone differently for them? There's certainly an element of logic to that. But the fact is they treated this girl pretty badly and should not be put in a position where they are role models and public representatives as a result. That isn't harsh in my eyes. At all.

Now there's a big difference between that attitude and that of the group of people who came out with the #ibelieveher before they ever heard a word of her story. That assumption of guilt is an incredibly dangerous thing. And there was certainly a mob mentality around a lot of that stuff that I was and am incredibly uncomfortable with too.There have been a few conversations around the assumption of consent, but the assumption of guilt can be every bit as dangerous and damning. More so in some cases. I firmly believe that the trial outcome was the correct one on balance and avoided making any judgement on that front (one way or another) quite deliberately. I do think some people are sitting in their trench looking at anyone else who isn't right there with them as being the enemy, with no shade of grey considered. Unfortunately cases like this live in the grey by their very nature.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

The pay off was in lieu of ending up in court. As were the NDA's signed off the back of it. If it was straight forward would the IRFU be handing over hundreds of thousands voluntarily?

As for the second part of your post, if people want real change then they need to be capable of forgiving and embracing those who have demonstrated that change. Clearly you are not capable of that, or at least you are more interested in the reputation of the IRFU and Ulster rugby than you are in redemption.

I've worked with many people that I didn't like and who I wouldn't associate with outside of work. That's life. If their attitude prevents them from being able to do that job then that's another matter, but given that Jackson and Olding were available for selection for a year after the allegation suggests that this isn't the case.

If I refused to work with people whose attitudes outside of work were not to my liking, it's me that would be at home alone.

prawnsambo

awec wrote: »

Yes, for PR.

Contracts revoked is a very weird way of saying "contracts paid up almost in full". But if they said "the two lads are being paid out of their contract" I can only imagine the social media frenzy.

There's been a lot of talk about their contracts being paid up, but I've seen no supporting evidence for it. Somebody referred to a BBC journalist saying it, but the BBC don't have any reference to that on their website. Either as an audio clip or text.

To revoke a contract is to withdraw it unilaterally.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

The pay off was in lieu of ending up in court. As were the NDA's signed off the back of it. If it was straight forward would the IRFU be handing over hundreds of thousands voluntarily?

As for the second part of your post, if people want real change then they need to be capable of forgiving and embracing those who have demonstrated that change. Clearly you are not capable of that, or at least you are more interested in the reputation of the IRFU and Ulster rugby than you are in redemption.

I've worked with many people that I didn't like and who I wouldn't associate with outside of work. That's life. If their attitude prevents them from being able to do that job then that's another matter, but given that Jackson and Olding were available for selection for a year after the allegation suggests that this isn't the case.

If I refused to work with people whose attitudes outside of work were not to my liking, it's me that would be at home alone.

1. You don't know any of that.

2. Well that's a major, major change from people can associate with whoever they want. Not consistent at all.

awec

Deleted User wrote: »

The pay off was in lieu of ending up in court. As were the NDA's signed off the back of it. If it was straight forward would the IRFU be handing over hundreds of thousands voluntarily?

As for the second part of your post, if people want real change then they need to be capable of forgiving and embracing those who have demonstrated that change. Clearly you are not capable of that, or at least you are more interested in the reputation of the IRFU and Ulster rugby than you are in redemption.

I've worked with many people that I didn't like and who I wouldn't associate with outside of work. That's life. If their attitude prevents them from being able to do that job then that's another matter, but given that Jackson and Olding were available for selection for a year after the allegation suggests that this isn't the case.

If I refused to work with people whose attitudes outside of work were not to my liking, it's me that would be at home alone.

Yes indeed, it seems a bit delusional to think they were straight up sacked. Jackson on what, 300k a year on a 2 year deal.

People are suggesting the IRFU handed out nearly 600k out of the goodness of their hearts?

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

Yes, for PR.

Contracts revoked is a very weird way of saying "contracts paid up almost in full". But if they said "the two lads are being paid out of their contract" I can only imagine the social media frenzy.

The amount of money that was paid is entirely a rumour. Seemingly quite inaccurate.

However there is no doubt at all that they were sacked.

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

1. You don't know any of that.

2. Well that's a major, major change from people can associate with whoever they want. Not consistent at all.

I'm confused.

Here you are, telling us you have no doubt they were sacked without any evidence whatsoever, telling someone who says they were paid off on the back of multiple media reports and the Ulster CEO himself that "you don't know any of that".

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The amount of money that was paid is entirely a rumour. Seemingly quite inaccurate.

However there is no doubt at all that they were sacked.

I think you're being deliberately obtuse now.

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

The blood wasn't ignored, it was deemed to be something it might not have been. It's only a 'cop out' if you want to dismiss it, but realistically it's a pretty reasonable explanation.

As I've pointed out, we don't know that Jackson or Olding saw her while upset. You are making incorrect assumptions yourself with this.

I find it very, very hard to believe that if I was sleeping with a woman in my own home that I wouldn't be aware of her being upset when she was leaving, or at the very least shortly after given what my mate would have seen in this case. I also find it very hard to believe that if I saw blood I wouldn't, as a decent human being, check to ensure everything was all right in some way. On top of that I find it almost impossible to believe that when they were talking about it all on WhatsApp the next day that they weren't fully aware of what Harrison had seen.

Can I prove any of this? No. And any one of the above in isolation wouldn't trouble me too much. The combination of all of them makes it all the harder to buy.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

As for the second part of your post, if people want real change then they need to be capable of forgiving and embracing those who have demonstrated that change. Clearly you are not capable of that, or at least you are more interested in the reputation of the IRFU and Ulster rugby than you are in redemption.

How has that been demonstrated? I'm not saying for an instant that the lads aren't being honest in their statements, but if all it takes is a public statement that you're a changed person, then we've set the bar very low indeed.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

An apology does not amends or change make. At the end of the day this sort of behaviour needs to be socially unacceptable. That means that at some stage society needs to visibly change it's attitude in relation to this sort of thing. And that is happening. There was always likely going to be a case where you could point to that change fairly definitively. This is probably that case. Is it harsh on the lads in the sense of had they done it 5 years earlier things might have gone differently for them? There's certainly an element of logic to that. But the fact is they treated this girl pretty badly and should not be put in a position where they are role models and public representatives as a result. That isn't harsh in my eyes. At all.

Now there's a big difference between that attitude and that of the group of people who came out with the #ibelieveher before they ever heard a word of her story. That assumption of guilt is an incredibly dangerous thing. And there was certainly a mob mentality around a lot of that stuff that I was and am incredibly uncomfortable with too.There have been a few conversations around the assumption of consent, but the assumption of guilt can be every bit as dangerous and damning. More so in some cases. I firmly believe that the trial outcome was the correct one on balance and avoided making any judgement on that front (one way or another) quite deliberately. I do think some people are sitting in their trench looking at anyone else who isn't right there with them as being the enemy, with no shade of grey considered. Unfortunately cases like this live in the grey by their very nature.

I largely agree with you on this and I'm on the same page for the most part. I don't agree with this however:

molloyjh wrote: »

At the end of the day this sort of behaviour needs to be socially unacceptable.

This absolutely isn't the case. Some people, men and women enjoy this discourse. That is freedom of speech. If their actions on foot of this discourse break laws that's different, but how people chose to interact with their peers in private is entirely down to them.

If their attitudes are displayed in public, then people can react to that, but I don't want what people think in private to become 'socially unacceptable' because eventually something that shouldn't be socially unacceptable will be co opted and then we're in trouble.

Again, I would have issues with their actions and I have a negative perception of them as individuals but I don't want them to change for my sake, I'd rather they changed for their own, which is what I said at the outset.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

I think you're being deliberately obtuse now.

They were sacked? How on earth could you think anything else.

Money did not drive the decision to sack rugby stars Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding, the head of Ulster Rugby has said.

- Independent

Nearly 7 in 10 people think the IRFU was right to sack Jackson and Olding

- The Journal

I have little sympathy for Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding - sacking them sends out right message

- The Telegraph

They were sacked. Their contracts were terminated because they were in breach. It's as simple as that.

tretorn

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 tear could only have been caused by Jacksons fingers if indeed it actually happened in Jacksons house at all.

There was no vaginal sex in the house at all, the men all said they had consensual oral sex and Jackson said he fingered the woman.

The forensic evidence backs up the men version of events, this is why the jury acquitted the men of all charges in less than four hours.

The Police definitely have a case to answer here as to why this case was brought but that wont be happening anytime soon.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

How has that been demonstrated? I'm not saying for an instant that the lads aren't being honest in their statements, but if all it takes is a public statement that you're a changed person, then we've set the bar very low indeed.

Why should one public statement not have capacity to undo the damage for one private one?

irishbucsfan

tretorn wrote: »

There was no vaginal sex in the house at all, the men all said they had consensual oral sex and Jackson said he fingered the woman.

A 3rd-party eye-witness disagrees with you.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The amount of money that was paid is entirely a rumour. Seemingly quite inaccurate.

However there is no doubt at all that they were sacked.

You've posted 3 sentences there and I don't think you could stand behind actually knowing whether any of them are true..

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They were sacked? How on earth could you think anything else.

- Independent

- The Journal

- The Telegraph

They were sacked. Their contracts were terminated because they were in breach. It's as simple as that.

I think you're a bit confused as to the discussion here.

There is no doubt they are no longer employed by the IRFU.

We have no idea whatsoever if they were actually sacked or paid off. Media reports suggest they received a financial settlement, which certainly is not a "sacking" in any common understanding of the term.

You say their contracts were terminated. Again, the implication they were let go with nothing to show for it. But again, media reports suggest a financial settlement that was not denied by the Ulster CEO when asked about it.

So when you say "it's as simple as that", you're just wrong.

If the IRFU were in a position to sack them why on earth would they refuse to deny that they paid them off and waffle on about "contractual matters" when asked directly. This is head in the sand ostrich stuff.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

I think you're a bit confused as to the discussion here.

There is no doubt they are no longer employed by the IRFU.

We have no idea whatsoever if they were actually sacked or paid off. Media reports suggest they received a financial settlement, which certainly is not a "sacking" in any common understanding of the term.

You say their contracts were terminated. Again, the implication they were let go with nothing to show for it. But again, media reports suggest a financial settlement that was not denied by the Ulster CEO when asked about it.

So when you say "it's as simple as that", you're just wrong.

Ah look I think there's a bit of denial going on here, I'll leave you to it

irishbucsfan

AdamD wrote: »

You've posted 3 sentences there and I don't think you could stand behind actually knowing whether any of them are true..

Go on, how much money were they paid? Looking forward to a source on that one.

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, I would have issues with their actions and I have a negative perception of them as individuals but I don't want them to change for my sake, I'd rather they changed for their own, which is what I said at the outset.

But you having issues with their actions is, and should be, the norm. Therefore society would have issue with their actions. They make their living publicly. Their actions matter as a result. And if those actions are socially unacceptable then they absolutely need to lose their jobs.

I'm not talking about them changing at all. I'd love it if they did. I'm talking about institutions that engage with the public as their primary focus taking a stand to show society that what isn't acceptable to it, is not acceptable to them. It can send a powerful message that this behaviour has consequences. It can tell people of all ages and genders that they should treat each other with a certain level of dignity and respect. And that if they don't they can't expect to just get away with it.

Listen, I'm a live and let live guy. If you're not hurting anyone you're free to live as you choose. But once that choice starts hurting others there has to be consequences.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

1. You don't know any of that.

2. Well that's a major, major change from people can associate with whoever they want. Not consistent at all.

Associating with and working with are two different things. I might not choose to go on a night out with Craig Gilroy, that doesn't mean I should keep my job if I refuse to play rugby with him for Ulster. Let's not forget he is still there and his messages were far, far worse than Jackson's.

Gilroy's apology seems to have been accepted. Do you think he should have been sacked?

awec

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Go on, how much money were they paid? Looking forward to a source on that one.

You're really not getting this at all. Why do you think the exact sum of money is important? Or are you just trying to obfuscate this discussion?

awec

awec wrote: »

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.

There is still a woman maintaining she was raped no matter what the outcome of the trial. You'd be naive to think that that isn't an influence.

irishbucsfan

awec wrote: »

You're really not getting this at all. Why do you think the exact sum of money is important? Or are you just trying to obfuscate this discussion?

I don't think it's important. Someone, completely incorrectly, said I was wrong to say the amount of money they were paid is a rumour. Of course it is.

Doesn't actually change anything, people who've been given the boot get a payoff all the time.

prawnsambo

awec wrote: »

You're really not getting this at all. Why do you think the exact sum of money is important? Or are you just trying to obfuscate this discussion?

This isn't an either/or situation. There have been high profile sackings where there has also been a payoff.

Barclays Bank CEO Antony Jenkins was sacked and was paid out the remainder of his salary for the year. £500k I believe.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

But you having issues with their actions is, and should be, the norm. Therefore society would have issue with their actions. They make their living publicly. Their actions matter as a result. And if those actions are socially unacceptable then they absolutely need to lose their jobs.

I'm not talking about them changing at all. I'd love it if they did. I'm talking about institutions that engage with the public as their primary focus taking a stand to show society that what isn't acceptable to it, is not acceptable to them. It can send a powerful message that this behaviour has consequences. It can tell people of all ages and genders that they should treat each other with a certain level of dignity and respect. And that if they don't they can't expect to just get away with it.

Listen, I'm a live and let live guy. If you're not hurting anyone you're free to live as you choose. But once that choice starts hurting others there has to be consequences.

Again, my argument is simply that if they act in public the way they do in private then by all accounts hold them to account. But I don't believe regardless of the publicity of their role that they automatically give up any right to privacy that they enjoy with the rest of society.

I also agree that if their private attitudes hurt someone there should be consequences. Such as a trial to establish if that hurt was criminal in nature.

I think it's great that the IRFU publicly take a stand against certain types of behaviour, they do this all the time with their various PR campaigns. I think using private communications as a means to make these kinds of statements however is dangerous. It's reactive and inconsistent. They've sent mixed messages in how they've dealt with Jackson, Olding and Gilroy.