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

launish116

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vKuXyPrUODg

Live stream of the Ulster A game kicking off shortly

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

People are marching under the banner of #ibelieveher. If you believe her then you believe that the defendants are rapists. Is that what you are saying?

If people want to march for court reform I'm totally in favour of that, if people have ideas let's hear them.

I don't see how protesting a verdict in a foreign court system resolves issues with our legal system. I don't see how doing it under a banner of accusation achieves anything at all.

No. You're being very black and white here. A banner is just a slogan, it has no nuance and can't express everyone's viewpoint.

And I really can't go any further with this discussion without crossing a line that the mods have set.

mfceiling

MJohnston wrote: »

You can count me in that too.

I do think there's something about male team sports that seems to create an extra level of toxicity within the playing population compared to the general population. And I'm disappointed that Ulster and Ireland seemingly haven't tackled that.

Just to come back on this.
I work in construction and on 99% of the jobs we go on to there is a site induction. This covers everything from health and safety, welfare facilities, access and egress and procedures in case of fire/emergency.
What is very common now is an anti bullying code of conduct. Respect EVERYONE on site, curtail the bad language, no mocking or abusive behaviour...some sites have introduced a unisex toilet and you can state in confidence on your induction form if you identify as gender neutral/fluid etc. A scaffolder on a site 2 years ago was dismissed ftom site for wolf whistling at a group of girls near the quays.
I'm going to say that Ulster and Ireland have made the players aware of similar protocol within the professional game.

prawnsambo

mfceiling wrote: »

An opinion that is asking why Ulster or Ireland haven't done anything to tackle the kind of statements posted by the 2 lads. How do you know they haven't?

I don't think he said anything about any statements. 'Toxicity' is the word he used.That could refer to any or all of statements, behaviour or actions.

And before the question is asked, Tiger Woods didn't do anything illegal but sponsors walked away from him in droves.

Tigerandahalf

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm assuming they took their phones. WhatsApp can't provide messages, they are end to end encrypted.

I doubt if the law can't get access.
Isn't that how a lot of the terrorist cells were being nabbed?

Tigerandahalf

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

I doubt if the law can't get access.
Isn't that how a lot of the terrorist cells were being nabbed?

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/paddy-jackson-and-stuart-olding-rape-trial-comment-a-not-guilty-result-is-not-a-failure-of-the-courts-system-it’s-a-verdict/ar-AAvhzev?li=BBr5KbJ

Worth a read tbh.

prawnsambo

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

I doubt if the law can't get access.
Isn't that how a lot of the terrorist cells were being nabbed?

Afaik, WhatsApp don't keep copies of messages on their servers. They are only there pending delivery to the recipient. After that they are gone. If you've ever changed phones you'd find that you can't retrieve your old messages unless you actually transfer them first.

MJohnston

mfceiling wrote: »

An opinion that is asking why Ulster or Ireland haven't done anything to tackle the kind of statements posted by the 2 lads. How do you know they haven't?

I said seemingly. I don't know that they haven't, but if they have, it appears to have been fairly ineffective and they might need to step it up. I also didn't say it was to tackle the WhatsApp messages, I was talking about it in the context of a culture of entitlement and disrespect that I can't believe would be allowed to persist in the Irish team, I'm less surprised that Ulster have not done anything to prevent it.

Former Former

Buer wrote: »

I just keep coming back to PJ in my mind and how he appears to be the focal point for a lot of ire. Can someone explain to me what grounds the IRFU could have against him based on his text messages?

"There was a lot of spit". That's it.

Am I missing something here?

I'd be very, very surprised if IRFU contracts don't have clauses relating to the reputation of the game and off-field conduct.

I'd be very surprised if in the provincial or national camps players weren't warned about this exact sort of behaviour after the previous events a few years ago.

Even if, of all the conflicting accounts of what happened that night, you take Jackson's as the definitive version, then he still put himself in a position that potentially exposed himself, Ulster and IRFU to serious embarrassment. Was he "off-duty"? Yes, but he's still a prominent figure in Ulster and Irish rugby.

But again, I really don't think anyone will need to be forced out. For us and for people on Twitter, this is a pretty abstract discussion of right and wrong. For Jackson and Olding, they have to live it, they have to walk around Belfast and be the object of all these protests and hashtags. If it was me, I'd be gone.

awec

If they’re given the boot they’ll get a payout, one way or the other.

mfceiling

MJohnston wrote: »

I can't believe would be allowed to persist in the Irish team, I'm less surprised that Ulster have not done anything to prevent it.

Again...you know this how?

awec

awec wrote: »

If they’re given the boot they’ll get a payout, one way or the other.

I believe that they'll be told that a clause on bringing the club into dispute will be exercised if theyvrefuse to leave but a compromise of immediate departure to play abroad will be offered as a middle ground.

The players will say they left of mutual agreement or they requested to be let go.

They aren't coming back.

Tigerandahalf

[Deleted User] wrote: »

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/paddy-jackson-and-stuart-olding-rape-trial-comment-a-not-guilty-result-is-not-a-failure-of-the-courts-system-it’s-a-verdict/ar-AAvhzev?li=BBr5KbJ

Worth a read tbh.

That says nothing about the texts and how they were sourced.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/paddy-jackson-and-stuart-olding-rape-trial-comment-a-not-guilty-result-is-not-a-failure-of-the-courts-system-it’s-a-verdict/ar-AAvhzev?li=BBr5KbJ

Worth a read tbh.

The Mirror is a rag. If I found myself agreeing totally with what it said in one of their articles, I'd have to question myself thoroughly. Probably with the help of some medieval instruments. :rolleyes:

This is a much better article and a long read. But then, complex issues demand a bit of attention.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

The Mirror is a rag. If I found myself agreeing totally with what it said in one of their articles, I'd have to question myself thoroughly. Probably with the help of some medieval instruments. :rolleyes:

This is a much better article and a long read. But then, complex issues demand a bit of attention.

Yes I read that and followed Frank Greaney during the trial. Una Mulallys piece in the Times today is a disgrace, and frankly, dangerous.

Did you read the article I posted?

MJohnston

mfceiling wrote: »

Again...you know this how?

Where did I say I *know* it?

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes I read that and followed Frank Greaney during the trial. Una Mulallys piece in the Times today is a disgrace, and frankly, dangerous.

Did you read the article I posted?

Yes.

launish116

Bedford 9-10 Ulster. Ulster have looked good, silly errors and some stupid passing has let them down. Keep fecking up in Bedford's 22. No disrespect to Nelson but feel if a proper 10 was playing they'd do better. Forwards have done well against a heavy pack. Paterson is solid, ran over a few peeps in the backline.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Deleted User wrote: »

People are marching under the banner of #ibelieveher. If you believe her then you believe that the defendants are rapists. Is that what you are saying?

You can believe the complainant without believing the defendents are rapists.

Unfortunately the world isn't binary and there is a significant grey area.

Consent for sex in Ireland and the UK is verbally or otherwise.

I suspect she acted in way that has been construed as consent but she didnt feel that she consented. Any negative vocalisations that she made 'not him too' were effected by adrenaline (as she felt she was being raped) and she vocalised below the audible range due to the effect of adrenaline.

So I feel that one can believe her without calling the defendents rapists.

As long as consent to sex can be verbal or otherwise and there's no obligation for a rape victim to resist (as in certain American states) there is a legitimate grey area whereby a woman can believe she was raped as her actions have been believed to be otherwise consent but she did not mean her actions as otherwise consent.

A few years ago there was a big media storm about colleges and schools having mandatory sexual consent classes for men. Personally I suspect that there are a large number of women that need these classes. A friend of a friend of mine is a solicitor and told me about a case he was familiar with

Man says to woman "I want to have sex with you"

Woman says to man "No"

Man says to woman "I really want to have sex with you"

Woman again says "No I dont want to have sex with you" but strips off her skirt and her underwear.

Man proceeds to have sex with woman who is a participant in sexual relations.

The next day the woman reports the man for rape. She said no to sex so she felt she was raped. She wasn't forced to have sex physically. She claims she felt threatened and forced to have sex because he was a much larger man and she had no where to go if she was to leave as they were in her apartmenr. She verbally did not consent but she removed her clothes when asked for sex.

Personally I would generally consider removing of clothes when asked for sex to be consent even if verbal consent is not included.

The court ruled that the man was not guilty. Presumably the woman removing her skirt and underwear was considered 'otherwise consent'. She feels she was raped he feels she consented.

In conclusion I believe her is not about calling the defendants rapists.

This is probably better suited to the legal discussion forum.

Hands Like Flippers

Bridge93 wrote: »

I see there's another 9 Ulster lads in the u18 Irish squad? Perhaps times are indeed changing. That's a couple of productive years in a row

Two are a year young as well.

CIARAN_BOYLE

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

You can believe the complainant without believing the defendents are rapists.

Sorry but you can't. Her testimony was crystal clear, there was no consent nor anything close to it.

Her testimony said nothing of the loudness or otherwise.

If you believe her and her testimony then there can be no doubt at all. That's the prosecution's case and if you don't think it happened that way then you don't believe her.

Squidgy Black

There was definitely an element of sexual abuse, and things taken too far.

But the convictions were for rape. They couldn't be proven, either by the conflicting evidence given by the complainant or the medical reports from the doctors.

A court of law determined that there wasn't sufficient evidence to prove it.

Any further accusations or 'opinions' are merely unfound. The whole premise of the #IBelieveHer is flawed. Yes, the UK courts process and in fact the Irish needs to be overhauled for cases similar to these and of other sensitive nature, encouraging victims to come forward and report.

But attacking the defendants here, and blatantly refusing the verdict isn't helping matters in any way.

Can we go back to attacking Nucifora instead, that was more fun.

mfceiling

MJohnston wrote: »

Where did I say I *know* it?

I'm less surprised that Ulster have not done anything to prevent it.

Your exact words^^
You're less surprised that Ulster HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING to prevent it.

Can you tell us all how you know this fact?

bilston

Deleted User wrote: »

Are people thinking that PJ contributed more to the unsavoury texts than he did? https://www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/worst-night-ever-raped-full-12271869

Most of the messages were from other persons not related to Ulster Rugby. I don't think PJ plays for Ulster again, for his sake and the IRFUs, but I don't think there's anywhere near enough 'disrepute' in his single message for him to lose a contract over it.

This.

CIARAN_BOYLE

Squidgy Black wrote: »

But attacking the defendants here, and blatantly refusing the verdict isn't helping matters in any way.

While I gave my support to my interpretation of the I believe her movement legally Jackson and Olding are guiltt of nothing.

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Can we go back to attacking Nucifora instead, that was more fun.

Presumably he will be the man in charge of the independent review.

launish116

16-10 Bedford. Beaten by a bigger team, plenty of enterprise but played just like the seniors attacking in retreat.

MJohnston

mfceiling wrote: »

I'm less surprised that Ulster have not done anything to prevent it.

Your exact words^^
You're less surprised that Ulster HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING to prevent it.

Can you tell us all how you know this fact?

Why are you determined to takes small sentences out of context and apply an intent to my posts which is not there? I very specifically posted just before the sentence you took out of context "I don't know that they haven't, but if they have, it appears to have been fairly ineffective and they might need to step it up." and that's in relation to actively working on toxicity as mentioned. Perhaps if I reworded the bit you quoted to "I would be less surprised if Ulster have not done anything to prevent it" then it would be more accurate when you take it out of context, but in context I think it's pretty obvious I meant that exact same thing.

Peregrine

bilston wrote: »

When is the Glasgow game?

RuMan wrote: »

Anyway the Glasgow game?

bilston wrote: »

Seriously, when is the Glasgow match?

I, too, would like to know when the Glasgow game is.

MJohnston

Peregrine wrote: »

I, too, would like to know when the Glasgow game is.

It says something about Ulster's season when talking about this shít is preferable to discussing upcoming matches.

joseywhales

There is too much focus on the messages. In fact it's almost a straw man that is just convenient to argue against. These protesters obviously believe that the complainant was raped, the defendants are not guilty of that crime. Because the court of law did not bring the ruling that they desired they are looking for alternative "justice". They won't be imprisoned but their careers will be damaged. In reaction to all of this we debate in silly generalisations about what ground x believe or the culture in group y, which is just complete made up nonsense without any proof. And all this debate has no impact. They believe her and they have a right to believe her and protest, we don't control people's thoughts we just control the law which includes a right to assembly.

My opinion is that if you had presented pj and so with that forensic evidence and told them they would be publically shamed and have to move to a different part of their own constituency (ie the uk), I feel like they would have accepted that outcome with humility. It's not the end of the world for them, they are fantastic players.