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

errlloyd

Synode wrote: »

https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/paddy-jackson-rape-charge-facing-14493510

The source is above. Don't think it's been confirmed yet. An absolute disgrace if the trial went ahead against the recommendation of the PSNI

Oh interesting, I still don't really see a source, or even a nod to a source there. Not like "A PSNI whistle blower has revealed on the condition of anonymity".

Sounds like pub talk of which there was a lot. I was told that when reporting restrictions were lifted, we were going to hear about her history of false accusations etc. But none of that materialised either.

Synode

errlloyd wrote: »

Oh interesting, I still don't really see a source, or even a nod to a source there. Not like "A PSNI whistle blower has revealed on the condition of anonymity".

Sounds like pub talk of which there was a lot. I was told that when reporting restrictions were lifted, we were going to hear about her history of false accusations etc. But none of that materialised either.

Who knows, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear it's true. A jury taking less than 4 hours to decide a case that took 9 weeks is pretty damning in my opinion. I'm sure we'll find out in time if there was incompetence involved in the decision to prosecute

Paul Smeenus

errlloyd wrote: »

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.

That doesn't at mean he didn't do it. If this trial has taught us anything, it's that.

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

Oh interesting, I still don't really see a source, or even a nod to a source there. Not like "A PSNI whistle blower has revealed on the condition of anonymity".

Sounds like pub talk of which there was a lot. I was told that when reporting restrictions were lifted, we were going to hear about her history of false accusations etc. But none of that materialised either.

Northern Ireland's rape/sexual offences prosecution rates lag massively behind the rest of the UK, and conviction rates lag even further behind.

This has been raised in the NI Assembly e.g. https://www.theyworkforyou.com/ni/?id=2016-10-17.6.16

In England and Wales there has been a concerted effort to increase prosecution (and consequently conviction) rates on VAWG offences. If there was a recommendation of not to prosecute by the PSNI, I wouldn't take that as evidence of anything. The PSNI seem to make a habit of recommending no prosecution, with the PPSNI frequently not bothering to prosecute even if they received a recommendation to prosecute from the PSNI

Paul Smeenus

errlloyd wrote: »

Synode wrote: »

https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/paddy-jackson-rape-charge-facing-14493510

The source is above. Don't think it's been confirmed yet. An absolute disgrace if the trial went ahead against the recommendation of the PSNI

Oh interesting, I still don't really see a source, or even a nod to a source there. Not like "A PSNI whistle blower has revealed on the condition of anonymity".

Sounds like pub talk of which there was a lot. I was told that when reporting restrictions were lifted, we were going to hear about her history of false accusations etc. But none of that materialised either.

You couldn't, because she is still guaranteed anonymity. Not saying for a second that she might have that history, but if she did, her continued need to not be identified would prevent us hearing about it.

awec

errlloyd wrote: »

Oh interesting, I still don't really see a source, or even a nod to a source there. Not like "A PSNI whistle blower has revealed on the condition of anonymity".

Sounds like pub talk of which there was a lot. I was told that when reporting restrictions were lifted, we were going to hear about her history of false accusations etc. But none of that materialised either.

Are the restrictions on reporting around the complainant lifted?

prawnsambo

Synode wrote: »

Who knows, but I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear it's true. A jury taking less than 4 hours to decide a case that took 9 weeks is pretty damning in my opinion. I'm sure we'll find out in time if there was incompetence involved in the decision to prosecute

Or the length of time the case took could have shortened the deliberation time. There's no hard and fast rule that you can extrapolate from the time it takes a jury to reach a verdict.

errlloyd

awec wrote: »

Are the restrictions on reporting around the complainant lifted?

They still can't report her name, but they can report anything that happened during Voir Dire. IE, all those days when we were told the Jury wasn't required because legal technicalities were being discussed.

OldRio

prawnsambo wrote: »

Or the length of time the case took could have shortened the deliberation time. There's no hard and fast rule that you can extrapolate from the time it takes a jury to reach a verdict.

Or it might have been obvious to the jury, who heard all the evidence, that they were not guilty.

Buer

prawnsambo wrote: »

Or the length of time the case took could have shortened the deliberation time. There's no hard and fast rule that you can extrapolate from the time it takes a jury to reach a verdict.

The foreperson publicly commented on this (and got themselves in serious trouble).

damianmcr

With Paddy asking questions of the PPS more info may come to light.

I'm 99% sure the PPS didn't want to charge. No one in London did and then it landed on the current prosecution barrister desk who took it. So it wasn't until the 3rd time. How did it get so far?

Want my opinion. It was pushed through by someone for the sole purpose to destroy Paddy and Stuart.

damianmcr

damianmcr wrote: »

It was pushed through by someone for the sole purpose to destroy Paddy and Stuart.

Let's play Cluedo, who had the motive, means and opportunity?

damianmcr

I dont know sorry.

Please note my opinion does not mean I think they are guilty or not just that something fishy happened with this getting to court.

prawnsambo

OldRio wrote: »

Or it might have been obvious to the jury, who heard all the evidence, that they were not guilty.

Well since that was the gist of the post I replied to, I'm not sure why you're repeating it. I clearly read that post.

damianmcr

damianmcr wrote: »

With Paddy asking questions of the PPS more info may come to light.

I'm 99% sure the PPS didn't want to charge. No one in London did and then it landed on the current prosecution barrister desk who took it. So it wasn't until the 3rd time. How did it get so far?

Want my opinion. It was pushed through by someone for the sole purpose to destroy Paddy and Stuart.

The barrister doesn't make a decision to prosecute or not, they try the case but the decision is made elsewhere. It was the PPS. I don't know what London has to do with it.

Synode

prawnsambo wrote: »

Or the length of time the case took could have shortened the deliberation time. There's no hard and fast rule that you can extrapolate from the time it takes a jury to reach a verdict.

No, but it's pretty indicative

Synode

Synode wrote: »

No, but it's pretty indicative

Not really, or else it's indicative of something you aren't implying. If you had made 7 weeks worth of notes and wanted to quickly review them before confirming a gut instinct decision, would it take you 4 hours to review+find a quick consensus?

bilston

errlloyd wrote: »

Synode wrote: »

https://www.belfastlive.co.uk/news/belfast-news/paddy-jackson-rape-charge-facing-14493510

The source is above. Don't think it's been confirmed yet. An absolute disgrace if the trial went ahead against the recommendation of the PSNI

Oh interesting, I still don't really see a source, or even a nod to a source there. Not like "A PSNI whistle blower has revealed on the condition of anonymity".

Sounds like pub talk of which there was a lot. I was told that when reporting restrictions were lifted, we were going to hear about her history of false accusations etc. But none of that materialised either.

The complainants name will
never be made public (although I'm sure we all know it) irrespective of reporting restrictions so you will never publicly hear about any alleged history.

Synode

Deleted User wrote: »

Not really. If you had made 7 weeks worth of notes and wanted to quickly review them before confirming a gut instinct decision, would it take you 4 hours to review+find a quick consensus?

I doubt there's many cases out there that take 9 weeks and are decided in 4 hours unanimously.

My brother in law was on a murder jury (in Dublin) that took about the same length as this trial. They couldn't get a unanimous decision after 3 days deliberating. The case had to be re-tried.

Synode

Synode wrote: »

I doubt there's many cases out there that take 9 weeks and are decided in 4 hours unanimously.

Your implication is that because it was decided so quickly, the evidence of the defendants innocence was overwhelmingly clear, right?

My question remains, how is a deliberation time so short that no juror could have even cursorily attempted to review evidence, indicative of anything other than that the jurors didn't review the two cases put toward them before making a decision?

It's called deliberation for a reason, and it's intended to be deliberation.

Synode

Synode wrote: »

I doubt there's many cases out there that take 9 weeks and are decided in 4 hours unanimously.

My brother in law was on a murder jury (in Dublin) that took about the same length as this trial. They couldn't get a unanimous decision after 3 days deliberating. The case had to be re-tried.

I don't really think this demonstrates anything. The if the trial was shorter do you think they'd have reached a verdict?

Synode

Hadassah CoolS Backside wrote: »

I don't really think this demonstrates anything. The if the trial was shorter do you think they'd have reached a verdict?

Nothing to do with how long the trial was really. More to do with how quickly they decided. Not one of them appear to have had any doubt on the innocence of all 4 parties

Buer

By the time they were sent for their deliberations, they had been considering the verdict for some time and reviewing the evidence presented. That's why they came to a decision quickly.

The source on this is pretty decent....

Synode

Deleted User wrote: »

Your implication is that because it was decided so quickly, the evidence of the defendants innocence was overwhelmingly clear, right?

My question remains, how is a deliberation time so short that no juror could have even cursorily attempted to review evidence, indicative of anything other than that the jurors didn't review the two cases put toward them before making a decision?

It's called deliberation for a reason, and it's intended to be deliberation.

I've no idea what you're saying here

Synode

Buer wrote: »

By the time they were sent for their deliberations, they had been considering the verdict for some time and reviewing the evidence presented. That's why they came to a decision quickly.

Or, it was patently clear that there was no case

Buer

Synode wrote: »

Or, it was patently clear that there was no case

I think I'll stick with what the foreperson of the jury publicly stated.

There's no jury in the world that isn't going to be considering their verdict before they actually get sent off to deliberate. In this instance, they had multiple days including significant time at the end of the trial where legal discussions were talking place and they were sent off to the jury room. I'm sure they weren't discussing the weather in there.

Synode

Buer wrote: »

I think I'll stick with what the foreperson of the jury publicly stated.

I never got to read that as it got removed. You have a link to it anywhere?

Buer

Synode wrote: »

I never got to read that as it got removed. You have a link to it anywhere?

I had a screenshot sent to me. Doubt you'll find it online now.

Buer

Buer wrote: »

I think I'll stick with what the foreperson of the jury publicly stated.

You mean the broadsheet comments that indicated she'd been reading online comments throughout the trial, and the comments that were in response to scathing criticism from a small proportion of people?

Yeah, no. I'll take them with a pinch of salt!

Buer

Deleted User wrote: »

You mean the broadsheet comments that indicated she'd been reading online comments throughout the trial,

Did you see the comments?

Buer

Buer wrote: »

Did you see the comments?

Yes. She's a sometime broadsheet.ie writer and a prolific commenter.

Buer

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes. She's a sometime broadsheet.ie writer and a prolific commenter.

Nothing she said indicated she had been reading online comments throughout the trial.

bilston

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

It is incredibly hard to discuss the team at the mo. I replied and had to scroll 4 pages to find it past the other stuff. Think the it should have it's own thread (not that I to debate that thanks).

Personally I would prefer some rebuilding years.

Can we not get rid of players who are bring paid but not played (ie, tried but found wanting?) Is Brett Heron still on the books?

Herron is leaving.

What's the story with Robbie Diack and Schalk Van Der Merwe, will they be here's next season?

It's good to see Jean Deysel starting to perform.

Buer

Buer wrote: »

Nothing she said indicated she had been reading online comments throughout the trial.

Sure, it's open to interpretation in fairness.

Can you tell me why she was engaging with social media in February and March despite the Judge's instructions/'urgings' to avoid social media?

Separately, do you think it's reasonable to believe that a juror who is engaging with social media during a trial against instructions, isn't going to be reading social media about the trial?

Judge Smyth namechecked Twitter in particular, which is a medium the broadsheet user/foreman posted on in late March days before the verdict.

So yes, I'll definitely take the jury foreman's comments with a pinch of salt.

launish116

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

launish116 wrote: »

Strange thought can we actually discuss rugby from now. What is done is done sadly! Try find something to look forward to....

It is incredibly hard to discuss the team at the mo.  I replied and had to scroll 4 pages to find it past the other stuff.  Think the it should have it's own thread (not that I to debate that thanks).

Personally I would prefer some rebuilding years.  

Can we not get rid of players who are bring paid but not played (ie, tried but found wanting?)  Is Brett Heron still on the books?

Agree with you on deadwood cull required, its just how to replace that position. My take on next years squad:

Key:  (leaving), (incoming), (Deadwood), (return/stay?) (Academy resource) (Academy resource with potential)

·     Ah You – deadwood? can scrummage/carrier. Fitness is an issue.
·     Andrew – needs game time
·     Addison – squad player, unknown quanity, but highly rated in England
·     Best – International, retire after RWC?
·     Black - leaving
·     Bowe - retiring
·     Browne – deadwood? What will happen now ravens U23
·     Busby – deadwood? needs game time
·     Butler - academy
·     Cairns – needs game time?
·     Cave – squad player, 1 year exstension
·     Clarke – Academy
·     Coetzee – will he return fit?
·     Cooney – player of the season?
·     Cooper - Academy, deadwood? overtaken by O'toole?
·     Curtis – Academy, future 12, real potential
·     Dalton – Academy, future 2^ndrow
·     Deysel – squad player, another season, forming picking up
·     Diack – deadwood? Where has he disappeared to?
·     Dunleavy – Academy, future 8 or 6?
·     Gilroy  - squad player
·     Hall –Academy, potentially leaving for Scotland?
·     Henderson – international, squad player
·     Henry – squad player, can’t get game time?
·     Herbst – squad player, needs an injury free run
·     Herring – squad player, will become 1^stchoice
·     Herron - leaving
·     Hume – Academy, needs game time
·     Jackson - leaving
·     Jones – Academy, needs game time
·     Kane – needs an injury free run, could really push on
·     Ludik – squad player, needs to be kept in 1 position
·     Lyttle – squad player, great strike rate, terrible injury record
·     Lowry – Academy, needs game time. One for future.
·     Marshall (P) deadwood? Will he return with family life in background?
·     Marshall – squad player, needs game time and injury free run
·     Mcburney – Academy, needs game time
·     Mccall – squad player, needs game time and injury free run
·     Mccall z - Academy , both McBurny & Clarke rated higher?
·     Mcloskey – squad player
·     Mcphilips – squad player, rumours he will leave? 
·     Mckusker - Academy
.    Murphy - international/squad player. Welcome addition.
.    Moore - squad player, don't actually think this will turn out great.
·     Nelson – squad player, needs to concrete wing/fullback next season.
·     Oconnor – squad player, future captain?
·     O’hagan –squad player, needs game time to see how he is?
·     O’toole – Academy/senior contract? Needs game time and chance improve scrummaging
·     Olding - leaving
·     Owens – deadwood? needs game time
·     O’sullivan – Academy and needs game time
·     Payne – will he return, medical retirement?
·     Piutau - leaving
·     Rea (Snr) – squad player, can push on with a full pre-season
·     Rea (Jnr) – Academy, looks a good ball carrier. Injury prone?
·     Reidy – squad player
·     Ross – deadwood? Will Ravens changing to U23 move him on.
·     Regan - Academy
·     Shanahan – squad player, needs game time and to progress
·     Simpson – deadwood now with all the tightheads?
·     Stewart – Academy, needs game time, progress
·     Stockdale – international 
·     Timoney – squad player, player of season
·     Treadwell – squad player, needs to push on and regain form
·     Trimble – squad player, will he return, is there much left in him?
·     Van der merve – deadwood? Will he actually play?
·     Warwick – squad player, really needs to progress 
We realistically need: loosehead, Second Row, out half, winger/fullback. Strangely tighthead is looking goodish. We have talented academy players coming through, just wish we had a squad to integrate them gradually. Realistically the academy could start to show its fruit by the end of next season.

OldRio

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well since that was the gist of the post I replied to, I'm not sure why you're repeating it. I clearly read that post.

I just wanted to.

errlloyd

errlloyd wrote: »

I believe it is actually many of the enraged Ulster supporters who do not accept the outcome of the court case. They do not accept that the outcome does not confirm innocence. If your position is "the lads are definitely innocent", then of course you're going to disagree with Paddy and Stuart being forced to leave. If your position is "actually they might not be innocent am I comfortable taking that risk" it changes the equation.

Put it this way, if your neighbour had just got a "not guilty" verdict on a pedophilia charge you would not let your children play in front of their house.

Someone posted earlier that the only way the men return is if the complainant apologises to them. But there are other ways, I believe if they took a case against the Crown Prosecution Service for malicious prosecution it would go a long way to establishing their full innocence. If the original complainant takes a civil case against them under the law of tort, and she fails on that too it would also go a long way to establishing their innocence (due to a much lower burden of proof).

Sorry Errlloyd mate but the lads are technically innocent. They started innocent and they stay innocent until a court proves they are guilty. If the court can not prove guilt then the default position stays.

Now that doesn't mean people can't disagree with the verdict and disagree with the jury, but it still doesn't make them anything other than innocent.

I know what you are trying to get at but due process and law and order are important and whilst we can disagree with a verdict and believe otherwise, we can't seek to supplement a verdict with our own form of justice.

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?

Jackson specifically testified that he saw the blood. He said he thought she was on her period and didn't want to create embarrassment by bringing attention to it. I probably would not have done the same, but in a group situation maybe I'd think differently.

It seems that Olding never went back downstairs. Jackson did eventually to lock up. I don't know what can be read into that.

It was taken down quite quickly but there was unreported evidence that the complainant ordered an uber and then cancelled it, opting to go with Harrison instead who ordered a cab on his company. This is in the public domain but there is a bit of a lack of verification. Again, I don't know if that is materially important.

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 don't think anyone is saying what it was or wasn't. The testimony from Jackson would indicate that he didn't realise there was a laceration and he presumed it was menstrual.

I had a sexual encounter once with a girlfriend and there was unexpected blood. We both initially presumed it was her, it turned out to be from a minor tear on me. It was fine but I went to the doctor to discover that it's extremely common. Sorry for the TMI but blood after sex happens fairly regularly. It could be nefarious no doubt but it's not automatically a sign of trauma.

bilston wrote: »

The complainants name will
never be made public (although I'm sure we all know it) irrespective of reporting restrictions so you will never publicly hear about any alleged history.

I don't know it because I don't want to know it, but the information is no doubt out there. Any alleged history wouldn't matter, she could have had 10 threesomes before and this one could still have been rape.

Synode wrote: »

I doubt there's many cases out there that take 9 weeks and are decided in 4 hours unanimously.

My brother in law was on a murder jury (in Dublin) that took about the same length as this trial. They couldn't get a unanimous decision after 3 days deliberating. The case had to be re-tried.

There are things you can and can't read into the deliberation time. You can't at all suggest that it means there was a false accusation and it is in no way proof that the complainant was lying.

However it does reflect on the strength of the case. It suggests that despite the time and resources available to consider all aspects of the verdict, the entire jury were on the same page at the conclusion of the trial and voted accordingly. This can happen in longer trials where along the way individual jurors for different reasons heard something that created a reasonable doubt. They could all have different reasons, they could all have the same reasons.

I think we might hear a little more about the legal machinations that transpired behind the scenes to bring this case to court, I sincerely doubt we'll ever here more about the complainant or the veracity of the allegation.

Hands Like Flippers

launish116 wrote: »

Hands Like Flippers wrote: »

launish116 wrote: »

Strange thought can we actually discuss rugby from now. What is done is done sadly! Try find something to look forward to....

It is incredibly hard to discuss the team at the mo.  I replied and had to scroll 4 pages to find it past the other stuff.  Think the it should have it's own thread (not that I to debate that thanks).

Personally I would prefer some rebuilding years.  

Can we not get rid of players who are bring paid but not played (ie, tried but found wanting?)  Is Brett Heron still on the books?

Agree with you on deadwood cull required, its just how to replace that position. My take on next years squad:

Key:  (leaving), (incoming), (Deadwood), (return/stay?) (Academy resource) (Academy resource with potential)

·     Ah You – deadwood? can scrummage/carrier. Fitness is an issue.
·     Andrew – needs game time
·     Addison – squad player, unknown quanity, but highly rated in England
·     Best – International, retire after RWC?
·     Black - leaving
·     Bowe - retiring
·     Browne – deadwood? What will happen now ravens U23
·     Busby – deadwood? needs game time
·     Butler - academy
·     Cairns – needs game time?
·     Cave – squad player, 1 year exstension
·     Clarke – Academy
·     Coetzee – will he return fit?
·     Cooney – player of the season?
·     Cooper - Academy, deadwood? overtaken by O'toole?
·     Curtis – Academy, future 12, real potential
·     Dalton – Academy, future 2^ndrow
·     Deysel – squad player, another season, forming picking up
·     Diack – deadwood? Where has he disappeared to?
·     Dunleavy – Academy, future 8 or 6?
·     Gilroy  - squad player
·     Hall –Academy, potentially leaving for Scotland?
·     Henderson – international, squad player
·     Henry – squad player, can’t get game time?
·     Herbst – squad player, needs an injury free run
·     Herring – squad player, will become 1^stchoice
·     Herron - leaving
·     Hume – Academy, needs game time
·     Jackson - leaving
·     Jones – Academy, needs game time
·     Kane – needs an injury free run, could really push on
·     Ludik – squad player, needs to be kept in 1 position
·     Lyttle – squad player, great strike rate, terrible injury record
·     Lowry – Academy, needs game time. One for future.
·     Marshall (P) deadwood? Will he return with family life in background?
·     Marshall – squad player, needs game time and injury free run
·     Mcburney – Academy, needs game time
·     Mccall – squad player, needs game time and injury free run
·     Mccall z - Academy , both McBurny & Clarke rated higher?
·     Mcloskey – squad player
·     Mcphilips – squad player, rumours he will leave? 
·     Mckusker - Academy
.    Murphy - international/squad player. Welcome addition.
.    Moore - squad player, don't actually think this will turn out great.
·     Nelson – squad player, needs to concrete wing/fullback next season.
·     Oconnor – squad player, future captain?
·     O’hagan –squad player, needs game time to see how he is?
·     O’toole – Academy/senior contract? Needs game time and chance improve scrummaging
·     Olding - leaving
·     Owens – deadwood? needs game time
·     O’sullivan – Academy and needs game time
·     Payne – will he return, medical retirement?
·     Piutau - leaving
·     Rea (Snr) – squad player, can push on with a full pre-season
·     Rea (Jnr) – Academy, looks a good ball carrier. Injury prone?
·     Reidy – squad player
·     Ross – deadwood? Will Ravens changing to U23 move him on.
·     Regan - Academy
·     Shanahan – squad player, needs game time and to progress
·     Simpson – deadwood now with all the tightheads?
·     Stewart – Academy, needs game time, progress
·     Stockdale – international 
·     Timoney – squad player, player of season
·     Treadwell – squad player, needs to push on and regain form
·     Trimble – squad player, will he return, is there much left in him?
·     Van der merve – deadwood? Will he actually play?
·     Warwick – squad player, really needs to progress 
We realistically need: loosehead, Second Row, out half, winger/fullback. Strangely tighthead is looking goodish. We have talented academy players coming through, just wish we had a squad to integrate them gradually. Realistically the academy could start to show its fruit by the end of next season.

Impressive lol.
Post of the year award.

launish116

PPS - is it in public interest to proceed? Yes... rest is history!

Can we please discuss rugby or there will be another large court case involving board members and masked graves!!!!

thomond2006

http://www.asm-rugby.com/actus/pas-de-paddy-jackson-%C3%A0-l%E2%80%99asm-clermont-auvergne

Clermont have firmly closed the door on Jackson.

foxyladyxx

thomond2006 wrote: »

http://www.asm-rugby.com/actus/pas-de-paddy-jackson-%C3%A0-l%E2%80%99asm-clermont-auvergne

Clermont have firmly closed the door on Jackson.

Snip

There is no contact between Paddy Jackson and the club and no desire on our part to engage his services. I trust our workforce in this position where we do not lack resources with Camille

thomond2006

Aside from the obvious reasons, the timing may also prove difficult for both players to find new clubs. Most of the business for 2018-19 is done at this stage.

Squatter

awec wrote: »

For what it's worth too, the female in the Munster incident was in the papers afterwards saying she felt like a broken woman.

That was because (a) the "friend" to whom she had foolishly sent a very obviously private message had spilled the beans and (b) because she had discovered that a third party had videoed the action.

It was NOT because of what went on in that hotel room.

thomond2006

thomond2006 wrote: »

Aside from the obvious reasons, the timing may also prove difficult for both players to find new clubs. Most of the business for 2018-19 is done at this stage.

Munster need a 10, Connacht would fall over themselves for a half the quality of Jackson and I reckon he'd be starting half at 4 or 5 Prem teams.

He maybe radioactive at this point. Who knows, but there aren't a shortage of suitors.

Squatter

foxyladyxx wrote: »

Snip

There is no contact between Paddy Jackson and the club and no desire on our part to engage his services. I trust our workforce in this position where we do not lack resources with Camille

Makes sense to me. Camille Lopez was playing out of his skin before his unfortunate injury, and PJ is far too good to be the no. 2 in the Clermont squad.

prawnsambo

launish116 wrote: »

PPS - is it in public interest to proceed? Yes... rest is history!

Can we please discuss rugby or there will be another large court case involving board members and masked graves!!!!

ClanofLams

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Munster need a 10, Connacht would fall over themselves for a half the quality of Jackson and I reckon he'd be starting half at 4 or 5 Prem teams.

He maybe radioactive at this point. Who knows, but there aren't a shortage of suitors.

Think it’s safe to say he won’t be showing up at another province.

Would think he will get picked up, he’s too good a player not to but if I was him/Olding I would be a bit concerned to see clubs proactively denying links. Clubs issuing statements to specifically rule out players is so unusual I can’t remember the last time it happened.

errlloyd

Deleted User wrote: »

Now that doesn't mean people can't disagree with the verdict and disagree with the jury, but it still doesn't make them anything other than innocent.

I know what you are trying to get at but due process and law and order are important and whilst we can disagree with a verdict and believe otherwise, we can't seek to supplement a verdict with our own form of justice.

This post is merely a debate of language and not law. Innocence has a different meaning depending on perspective, they are innocent from the perspective of the law. That protects them from some discrimination, but as long as we act within those protections we are each free to judge their moral innocence if we have reasonable cause.

Dubinusa

Somebody will sign P.J. Most likely during the summer when the drama has died down.Sale have just lost 2 backline players, wonder if S.O is on their radar.
Looking over the Ulster squad and reading launish16's analysis, it really is piss poor for a starting point.
The academy players will be used more frequently now, and imo, that's a good thing. Sink or swim. Could be a gem in there, or 2. Obviously the oh position is key, so they will probably address that 1st. The lh should also be addressed quickly as that is one of the major problems with Ulster. Very little quality at loose head. Still think Coulson is worth a shot.
I'd love to see Flanagan come back from Sarries. Not a star but was good for Munster. Dalton is a very good prospect and probably will be signed to a contract in the next year. Regan needs to step up and I think he is another decent prospect. He was very good for the u20's last year. I thought he was as good as Dowling.
Amazing, Ulsters backline ie thin!! Never thought I'd say that. Not sure if there's anybody out of contract on the island that can step in, although they could look to snatch someone from another academy C.O.B? Jack Kelly? Or Shane Daly. Interesting off season coming up.

Asus X540L

What was Paddy Jackson's contact worth? 600k?