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

MJohnston

foxyladyxx wrote: »

I have been on twitter and have supported Jackson. .The ''if'' wouldn't have been in capital letters. .Yes I do think it would have helped somewhat.

It would have avoided the #suemepaddy brigade.

Well yes it would have helped, but only in the sense that he wouldn't have been threatening to sue people.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Because neither of these players acted remotely sensibly?

So having a threesome and sending a whatsapp is now 'not sensible'?

Again, remove the accusation. From Jackson's perspective if he is innocent and there was no issue with consent, what was not sensible about his actions?

MJohnston

Deleted User wrote: »

So having a threesome and sending a whatsapp is now 'not sensible'?

Again, remove the accusation. From Jackson's perspective if he is innocent and there was no issue with consent, what was not sensible about his actions?

So "if you exclude all the things that weren't sensible about his actions, what was not sensible about his actions?"

Podge_irl

I think Olding is getting less coverage simply because he is less well known rather than because of his well conceived statement.

MJohnston

MJohnston wrote: »

So "if you exclude all the things that weren't sensible about his actions, what was not sensible about his actions?"

If you exclude the accusation that wasn't provable in court and that he denies.

I'm pointing out that it's entirely possible Jackson had a consensual threesome and then sent a whatsapp message that whilst questionable is not something he would face sanction over.

It requires you do the outrageous and consider for a second that he could be completely innocent and then try and identify what actions in particular lacked sense.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

So having a threesome and sending a whatsapp is now 'not sensible'?

Again, remove the accusation. From Jackson's perspective if he is innocent and there was no issue with consent, what was not sensible about his actions?

As I said. From Jackson's perspective, he would probably be captain of the Lions.

I'm not interested, remotely, in engaging in that fantasy.

If you can't see that their actions all night lacked sense and restraint, then I'm not really sure what I can say to help you understand why people are reacting the way that they are.

foxyladyxx

Deleted User wrote: »

So having a threesome and sending a whatsapp is now 'not sensible'?

Again, remove the accusation. From Jackson's perspective if he is innocent and there was no issue with consent, what was not sensible about his actions?

Surely at his age he would have known how to behave in public as an international rugby player? Surely he was advised against having one night stands because of the threat of ladies who frequent VIP areas of clubs who host parties for Premier League and rugby International players and who target these guys with the specific aim of selling a ''kiss and tell story'' to the Sunday World.

I am not in any way suggesting that the complainant in this case had that intent . .I do think she believed she was raped .

Their private messages would also come under scrutiny.. .Nothing is private in this age. Anyone could ss their texts etc. .Surely they were told that?

irishbucsfan

Podge_irl wrote: »

I think Olding is getting less coverage simply because he is less well known rather than because of his well conceived statement.

You may be right. Its hard for me to separate that stuff because I know them both.

Zzippy

On the post-trial publicity thing. There were no winners in this trial, and Olding struck the right note with his statement when he acknowledged the alleged victim, and apologised for the hurt caused to her. Jackson did the opposite, and his solicitor made several attacks on the girl in question, as well as social media commentators, then followed it up with the threat to sue. No matter how angry he was, he should have been better advised. I got the distinct impression his solicitor likes the cameras and playing to the crowd.

foxyladyxx

Zzippy wrote: »

On the post-trial publicity thing. There were no winners in this trial, and Olding struck the right note with his statement when he acknowledged the alleged victim, and apologised for the hurt caused to her. Jackson did the opposite, and his solicitor made several attacks on the girl in question, as well as social media commentators, then followed it up with the threat to sue. No matter how angry he was, he should have been better advised. I got the distinct impression his solicitor likes the cameras and playing to the crowd.

Precisely that Zippy. He should have engaged in damage limitation at that point.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

As I said. From Jackson's perspective, he would probably be captain of the Lions.

I'm not interested, remotely, in engaging in that fantasy.

If you can't see that their actions all night lacked sense and restraint, then I'm not really sure what I can say to help you understand why people are reacting the way that they are.

I'm not asking you to engage in fantasy about Lions tours or who Jackson would be playing for. I'm saying remove the question of consent from the equation. What actions of Jackson lacked sense?

Was it inviting people back to his house? Having a threesome or was it the messages?

It's a simple question I've asked three times. Are 24 year olds not entitled to have house parties and engage in sexual activity?

There is a question of consent so it's a moot point, but if on the night there was no question of consent in asking you what actions Paddy took that you have an issue with?

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not asking you to engage in fantasy about Lions tours or who Jackson would be playing for. I'm saying remove the question of consent from the equation. What actions of Jackson lacked sense?

Was it inviting people back to his house? Having a threesome or was it the messages?

It's a simple question I've asked three times. Are 24 year olds not entitled to have house parties and engage in sexual activity?

There is a question of consent so it's a moot point, but if on the night there was no question of consent in asking you what actions Paddy took that you have an issue with?

They are entitled to lack sense and do all those things with people they don't know while hammered drunk.

Being daft and immature isn't illegal. It isn't however a smart thing to do if you want to take a job that requires a squeaky clean public image, which sport in Ireland does.

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They are entitled to lack sense and do all those things with people they don't know while hammered drunk.

Being daft and immature isn't illegal. It isn't however a smart thing to do if you want to take a job that requires a squeaky clean public image, which sport in Ireland does.

Yeah, exactly.

I said this before, even if you take Jackson's version of events as the absolute truth, or Olding's, then they still put themselves in a position where significant embarrassment to themselves and their employers was a very real possibility.

All it takes is one person at a party to take a video of prominent people in a compromising position, it will be all over the internet and a lot of the same issues would arise, even if there is no doubt over consent.

I know there's a question to be asked as to why none of this applied to the previous Ireland players who were known to have been involved in a (consensual) threesome, but the reality is that was five years ago and a lot has happened since then, even in the last 12 months, in terms of the sexual behaviours of men in general, but particularly famous men.

There's also a lot of heightened attention on "female bodily autonomy" with the upcoming referendum here in the south, and that is definitely playing a part here.

Is it fair that the Ulster guys are perhaps being judged more harshly due to wider circumstances? Maybe not, but it's the situation we find ourselves in and Ulster/IRFU have to deal with the reality of the situation, not what the reality "should" be.

kingofthekong

Off topic but does anyone know why Lorcan Dow was released?, he seemed to be a decent prospect then all of a sudden never heard of again, afaik hes back in England

jr86

foxyladyxx wrote: »

Instead he became the target for the twitter backlash. Olding got away lightly by comparison.

The reason for that is PJ is simply the most famous out of all of them

Look at the reaction to the WhatsApp messages that he barely played a part in.

This has been known as the "Paddy Jackson" trial by many throughout, it's him that is the main face on the front pages, it's him that's the big name in this

No matter what any of them afterwards, jackson was always going to get the loudest negative reaction

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They are entitled to lack sense and do all those things with people they don't know while hammered drunk.

Being daft and immature isn't illegal. It isn't however a smart thing to do if you want to take a job that requires a squeaky clean public image, which sport in Ireland does.

Do you even realise what you are saying here?

What people do off the pitch is their business, having a house party and engaging in group sex is their decision to make. That you judge them silly, immature and daft for doing so is equally your right but it's not your right to hold them to your moral standard or punish them for not reaching it.

As for sport in Ireland being squeaky clean, you might want to mention that to Conor McGregor, you know, the most famous sports star in the country.

RuMan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They are entitled to lack sense and do all those things with people they don't know while hammered drunk.

Being daft and immature isn't illegal. It isn't however a smart thing to do if you want to take a job that requires a squeaky clean public image, which sport in Ireland does.

2 munster lads?

The Lost Sheep

kingofthekong wrote: »

Off topic but does anyone know why Lorcan Dow was released?, he seemed to be a decent prospect then all of a sudden never heard of again, afaik hes back in England

No idea why he was released. Possibly not good enough. He's playing with Richmond in Championship

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

Yeah, exactly.

I said this before, even if you take Jackson's version of events as the absolute truth, or Olding's, then they still put themselves in a position where significant embarrassment to themselves and their employers was a very real possibility.

All it takes is one person at a party to take a video of prominent people in a compromising position, it will be all over the internet and a lot of the same issues would arise, even if there is no doubt over consent.

I know there's a question to be asked as to why none of this applied to the previous Ireland players who were known to have been involved in a (consensual) threesome, but the reality is that was five years ago and a lot has happened since then, even in the last 12 months, in terms of the sexual behaviours of men in general, but particularly famous men.

There's also a lot of heightened attention on "female bodily autonomy" with the upcoming referendum here in the south, and that is definitely playing a part here.

Is it fair that the Ulster guys are perhaps being judged more harshly due to wider circumstances? Maybe not, but it's the situation we find ourselves in and Ulster/IRFU have to deal with the reality of the situation, not what the reality "should" be.

Hang on. If Jackson was recorded without his permission taking part in a sex act and that tape was released he would be a victim of a breach of his privacy as it wasn't in a public space.

Are you suggesting that we should blame the victim in this instance???

irishbucsfan

RuMan wrote: »

2 munster lads?

Lucky lads. Not the only ones either.

In many ways it's the reverse of Ulster getting away with signing a drugs cheat while Munster got crucified for it. Times moved on, the sport matured. Izzy Folau has probably hung himself now for comments which would not have been so inflammatory even a decade ago. That's just the nature of things.

swiwi_

Buer wrote: »

I have, of course, said things to my close friends or family in person, email or text that I would not say in a public forum just as everyone has.

You mean like that PM you sent me saying “I love you Swiwi”

Bazzo

Not sure if it's been posted here but the Glasgow match has been rearranged for Saturday the 21st.

https://twitter.com/UlsterRugby/status/981472466873782272?s=19

Former Former

Deleted User wrote: »

Hang on. If Jackson was recorded without his permission taking part in a sex act and that tape was released he would be a victim of a breach of his privacy as it wasn't in a public space.

Are you suggesting that we should blame the victim in this instance???

No.

I'm saying it would be a significant embarrassment for the people involved and their employers, who rely on a positive public perception.

Players being cognisant of that sort of thing is just part of being famous and it may well be a condition of their employment.

There are plenty of jobs out there where no one cares what you do on a Saturday night, but you cannot expect to enjoy the trappings of a high-profile position like an international rugby player without being aware of the pitfalls and behaving accordingly.

It would be nice if we could all say that what happens on a player's down-time is his own business, but that's not how the real world works. People have been selling saucy stories to tabloids for decades, this is the same thing just in a different format.

swiwi_

If only we were still in the time of Shakespeare, Gilroy would be grand

WhereforeArtThouApp: Prey tell kind sirs, did night's revelry comely maidens so unchasten?

MJohnston

Former Former wrote: »

It would be nice if we could all say that what happens on a player's down-time is his own business, but that's not how the real world works.

Ultimately sportspeople will continue to be role models for young people, which is why they would be held to a very high standard of conduct in and out of their sport.

That said, I'm not entirely sure I'm onboard with the idea of "it'd be fine if we never found out about it".

Synode

MJohnston wrote: »

Ultimately sportspeople will continue to be role models for young people, which is why they would be held to a very high standard of conduct in and out of their sport.

That said, I'm not entirely sure I'm onboard with the idea of "it'd be fine if we never found out about it".

Were you as vocal about the Munster pair involved in the 3some (that ended up being circulated on WhatsApp and the girl lost her job)?

stephen_n

Going by that there is a clear gender divide on wether the apology is acceptable or not. The replies are pretty much split down the middle male to female. Then you get SUFTUM GAWA which is a whole different sort of nutjob :eek:

prawnsambo

Synode wrote: »

Were you as vocal about the Munster pair involved in the 3some (that ended up being circulated on WhatsApp and the girl lost her job)?

I'm not sure that was as widely known. I certainly didn't know about it.

Edit: Quoted the wrong post initially.

sydthebeat

Zzippy wrote: »

On the post-trial publicity thing. There were no winners in this trial, and Olding struck the right note with his statement when he acknowledged the alleged victim, and apologised for the hurt caused to her. Jackson did the opposite, and his solicitor made several attacks on the girl in question, as well as social media commentators, then followed it up with the threat to sue. No matter how angry he was, he should have been better advised. I got the distinct impression his solicitor likes the cameras and playing to the crowd.

without being on one side or the other.......

but the guys in eggchasers podcast made some very good points as to why jacksons non mentioning of the accuser was actually a better course of action.

ill try to listen back and outline their arguments

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

No.

I'm saying it would be a significant embarrassment for the people involved and their employers, who rely on a positive public perception.

Players being cognisant of that sort of thing is just part of being famous and it may well be a condition of their employment.

Again, this reads as you blaming the players for the actions of others. If people want to spill all to the press or record them without their consent that's on them.

I don't disagree that privacy is of greater concern if you are a celebrity and certainly you can take steps to limit the risk of these things happening but the fact that the media will pay for these tell all stories and people are willing to unilaterally disclose private information is the wrong here, not some young lads enjoying their sexuality.

If George Hook can be lambasted and rightfully so for suggesting a female putting herself into a vulnerable situation is partly to blame for the result then I ask does the same standard not apply to Paddy Jackson? Why should he be called daft, immature and silly for engaging in a certain type of behaviour within the privacy of his own home? The only way for that information to come out (other than an issue of consent arising) is if someone decides to unilaterally disclose that information without his consent.

Again, why is it ok to blame him for this and hold him to account for it?

Surely if the issue of consent never arose but a video of him engaged in the act came out we should be sympathetic to him no?

This case has brought many expected double standards to light but quite a few unexpected ones also, and I mean that for both the complainant and the accused.