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

Synode

prawnsambo wrote: »

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

Edit: Quoted the wrong post initially.

Now that you know about it, do you think they should be hauled before the IRFU and Munster for a hearing?

damianmcr

Can we move on to Folau now please?

Good timing chap.

Former Former

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

I am not blaming anyone. I'm just pointing out that this is the reality of the situation.

sydthebeat

sydthebeat wrote: »

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

basically the point was either say nothing as jackson did, or go hard on the 'innocent'... they called oldings a non apology in that the language was "sorry about how you felt"

listening back actually... theyre not actually making any good points
just giving their own opinions.

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

I am not blaming anyone. I'm just pointing out that this is the reality of the situation.

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.

You may not realise it, but that's exactly what this post is doing. You are blaming them for putting themselves into a situation that someone else abuses for their own personal gain.

Again, the wrong in this situation is their privacy being abused, that it was foreseeable doesn't take away from this fact.

For sure if I was in their shoes I would be more cautious and conscientious but that would be my choice.

prawnsambo

Synode wrote: »

Now that you know about it, do you think they should be hauled before the IRFU and Munster for a hearing?

What? Years after the event?

Certainly at the time, yes. But that ship has now sailed and you can't start retroactively punishing players. And that's not even taking into account that they would have signed multiple contracts since then. So any contractual obligations at the time are long since void.

Edit: We also don't know if they were reprimanded for it or not at the time.

MJohnston

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 really familiar with the details of that one, however it seems that the act itself was entirely consensual, so I'm not sure why I would be vocal about that? Did someone record a video without the girls permission? Was it distributed without her consent or knowledge?

damianmcr

I believe the answer is yes to both them questions

MJohnston

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm not really familiar with the details of that one, however it seems that the act itself was entirely consensual, so I'm not sure why I would be vocal about that? Did someone record a video without the girls permission? Was it distributed without her consent or knowledge?

If it did it would be her own fault for putting herself into that situation, right?

I mean, I don't agree with that - but that seems to be the standard people on here are happy with.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

If it did it would be her own fault for putting herself into that situation, right?

I mean, I don't agree with that - but that seems to be the standard people on here are happy with.

Really? People? Plural?

And where's the personal gain that you're so exercised about going to come about in this instance?

Downlinz

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)?

She didn't lose her job, that's not true at all.

Former Former

Deleted User wrote: »

You may not realise it, but that's exactly what this post is doing. You are blaming them for putting themselves into a situation that someone else abuses for their own personal gain.

Again, the wrong in this situation is their privacy being abused, that it was foreseeable doesn't take away from this fact.

For sure if I was in their shoes I would be more cautious and conscientious but that would be my choice.

I'm not blaming anyone. They can do whatever they like as far as I'm concerned, as long as it's all legal and consensual. If the entire Leinster team wants to spitroast each other after a game, let them at it.

However, not everyone shares the same views as me. Many, many, many people think that two team-mates having sex with the same woman (whom they just met) is not acceptable behaviour, especially from public figures who are supposed to be role models for young people. Whether I agree or not does not make those opinions go away.

Just because I know and understand that some people think a certain way does not mean I think that way myself.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Really? People? Plural?

And where's the personal gain that you're so exercised about going to come about in this instance?

In that incident I'd imagine it was the players ego's.

Either way, no one should be filming anyone without consent. Regardless of whether it's a player filming an act or a randomer filming a player.

I wonder would IBF call the woman in the Munster incident daft, immature and silly for getting involved with the two players or should we adopt a more sympathetic tone?

Buer

Downlinz wrote: »

She didn't lose her job, that's not true at all.

She left the country due to the fall out. It was a pretty grim scenario and, whilst consensual, it was a pretty sordid episode with it being filmed by others present.

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

I'm not blaming anyone. They can do whatever they like as far as I'm concerned, as long as it's all legal and consensual. If the entire Leinster team wants to spitroast each other after a game, let them at it.

However, not everyone shares the same views as me. Many, many, many people think that two team-mates having sex with the same woman (whom they just met) is not acceptable behaviour, especially from public figures who are supposed to be role models for young people. Whether I agree or not does not make those opinions go away.

Just because I know and understand that some people think a certain way does not mean I think that way myself.

Many many many people think gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Should we ban gay married players from representing the provinces?

You are blaming them. Saying they put themselves into a situation suggests they are to blame regardless of the outcome. Saying the woman at the centre of the George Hook comments put herself into a situation is exactly the same and equally wrong.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

In that incident I'd imagine it was the players ego's.

Either way, no one should be filming anyone without consent. Regardless of whether it's a player filming an act or a randomer filming a player.

I wonder would IBF call the woman in the Munster incident daft, immature and silly for getting involved with the two players or should we adopt a more sympathetic tone?

You either don't understand IBF's point or you're deliberately misinterpreting it.

But since she also suffered from the fallout to the extent of having to leave the country, I suspect that she also would have felt that it was silly and immature and by all accounts regrettable.

MJohnston

Deleted User wrote: »

If it did it would be her own fault for putting herself into that situation, right?

I mean, I don't agree with that - but that seems to be the standard people on here are happy with.

I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning at all. You consent to one thing, it doesn't mean that you're consenting to everything that happens after that. What is the parallel you're trying to make here?

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

You either don't understand IBF's point or you're deliberately misinterpreting it.

But since she also suffered from the fallout to the extent of having to leave the country, I suspect that she also would have felt that it was silly and immature and by all accounts regrettable.

I do understand IBF's post. I'm merely highlighting the double standard at the core of the sentiment.

Former Former

Deleted User wrote: »

Many many many people think gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry. Should we ban gay married players from representing the provinces?

You are blaming them. Saying they put themselves into a situation suggests they are to blame regardless of the outcome. Saying the woman at the centre of the George Hook comments put herself into a situation is exactly the same and equally wrong.

No, I'm not.

I literally can't explain it any more simply.

I'm just trying to recognise the reality of life. You're living in an absolute fantasy land. Your version of how life operates is completely at odds with the reality that has played out before our eyes in the last week.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

I do understand IBF's post. I'm merely highlighting the double standard at the core of the sentiment.

No, you're putting words in his mouth and extrapolating a double standard from them.

MJohnston

MJohnston wrote: »

I'm not sure I follow this line of reasoning at all. You consent to one thing, it doesn't mean that you're consenting to everything that happens after that. What is the parallel you're trying to make here?

People are suggesting that Jackson was daft, silly and immature for his actions the night of the complaint regardless of whether there was an issue with consent or not. The sentiment is that as sports professionals they are at risk of exposure around strangers and having the story leaked to the press.

I'm pointing out that whilst that is true, it isn't their fault ultimately if someone decides to take advantage of that situation and expose them. They would be the victims in this scenario, even if it was foreseeable.

It stems from the argument that if you accept Paddy Jackson's version of events then what has he actually done wrong? A consensual threesome and one whatsapp message that really had very little to it. Bit gross but otherwise nothing of a consequence that would impact his career.

No one will ever give Paddy Jackson the benefit of the doubt, I certainly have doubts about his version of events but if you did take them at face value I fail to see what is wrong with his actions that night. It's no ones business once no laws were broken.

MJohnston

Deleted User wrote: »

People are suggesting that Jackson was daft, silly and immature for his actions the night of the complaint regardless of whether there was an issue with consent or not. The sentiment is that as sports professionals they are at risk of exposure around strangers and having the story leaked to the press.

I'm pointing out that whilst that is true, it isn't their fault ultimately if someone decides to take advantage of that situation and expose them. They would be the victims in this scenario, even if it was foreseeable.

It stems from the argument that if you accept Paddy Jackson's version of events then what has he actually done wrong? A consensual threesome and one whatsapp message that really had very little to it. Bit gross but otherwise nothing of a consequence that would impact his career.

No one will ever give Paddy Jackson the benefit of the doubt, I certainly have doubts about his version of events but if you did take them at face value I fail to see what is wrong with his actions that night. It's no ones business once no laws were broken.

What has that got anything to do with the post of mine that you quoted and replied to originally though?

Separately "if you accept Paddy Jackson's version of events" is a hell of a leap in logic to make, considering you know very well that plenty of people don't.

Former Former

Former Former wrote: »

No, I'm not.

I literally can't explain it any more simply.

I'm just trying to recognise the reality of life. You're living in an absolute fantasy land. Your version of how life operates is completely at odds with the reality that has played out before our eyes in the last week.

I'm not living in any fantasy land. I'm saying that to blame them for other people breaching their privacy is absurd. They should have the same expectation of privacy as you or I regardless of who they choose to be intimate with.

I know that doesn't happen in reality, but the fact that it does happen doesn't mean it's their fault. If someone kisses and tells that's on the person kissing and telling, the players shouldn't be tarnished by it nor labelled as stupid because it happened.

MJohnston

MJohnston wrote: »

What has that got anything to do with the post of mine that you quoted and replied to originally though?

Separately "if you accept Paddy Jackson's version of events" is a hell of a leap in logic to make, considering you know very well that plenty of people don't.

I'm not asking anyone to change their mind. I'm asking them to consider for a second that if they were the definitive version of events, what did Jackson actually do to merit the labels "stupid, immature and daft".

As for your comment that I quoted, I was simply highlighting that the women in the Munster incident would expect privacy in the same way that Paddy Jackson should expect privacy. Others are labelling him stupid for his actions given his profile and the potential exposure to the media, but why should he be blamed for someone taking his picture or sharing his exploits with the media when it all occurred in his own home, his own bedroom no less. Surely the blame in that instance is placed on the person who goes to the press?

Or at least I would have thought so, others appear to disagree and believe they share the blame for 'putting themselves into that situation'.

Sorry, they're not blaming them, I forgot.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not asking anyone to change their mind. I'm asking them to consider for a second that if they were the definitive version of events, what did Jackson actually do to merit the labels "stupid, immature and daft".

Because getting hammered drunk and doing stupid stuff isn't without consequences as some French players found out. They were found guilty of nothing, but lost their places in the French squad as a result.

But the answer to your question is; anything that you wouldn't like the world to find out about would be stupid and daft if you left yourself open to exactly that happening.

Buer

Buer wrote: »

I could not disagree more. You show me someone who hasn't said something in bad taste in a private conversation and I'll show you a liar.

A text message gives no context or tone. It is taken as a black and white communication. It is ridiculous to threaten someone's livelihood over it.

Gilroy's words were pretty repugnant but I guarantee you know people who have said similar. This was a group of young guys who were hungover and boasting about their drunken exploits with friends. That's not a red herring. It's simply factual and it's far from unusual.

If we are to be held accountable for every single thing we say in conversation, text or email then I'll just hand my laptop and phone into Big Brother now.

You could not disagree more, but you didn't disagree with anything in my post and showed fairly conclusively that you did not understand it.

1) Other people saying or doing distasteful things is not some sort of get out of jail free card.

2) People have a right to a livelihood, they do not have a right to a specific livelihood. Gilroy or anyone has no right to being a rugby player. If fans, sponsors and the IRFU feel that he or anyone else is not fit to be a professional rugby player in Ireland, that's the end of it. You have no right to decide what is and isn't acceptable for others, you only have a right to try influence their opinions. Employers don't have a duty of fairness to employees.

3) Knowing other people who have done similarly distasteful things doesn't somehow mean that I'm not allowed find something distasteful. That's a fairly obvious logical fallacy.

4) If you are saying things in private that could ruin your career, that's your own eminently stupid decisions. Don't blame others when private conversations become public and have repercussions. It's called responsibility and maturity and it isn't anyone else's problem if you lack those and it ends up biting you in the arse.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

But the answer to your question is; anything that you wouldn't like the world to find out about would be stupid and daft if you left yourself open to exactly that happening.

Really? That's the standard now?

What if a guest in my home wandered into the spare room by accident and saw my model train set and conductor outfit. I could have an interest like that but also be embarrassed about people finding out.

If the above happened would I be daft and stupid for having invited people into my home?

What about Kate Middleton sunbathing topless. Was she daft and stupid for expecting privacy in a gated resort?

Slippery slope there my friend.

Zzippy

Deleted User wrote: »

You may not realise it, but that's exactly what this post is doing. You are blaming them for putting themselves into a situation that someone else abuses for their own personal gain.

Again, the wrong in this situation is their privacy being abused, that it was foreseeable doesn't take away from this fact.

For sure if I was in their shoes I would be more cautious and conscientious but that would be my choice.

They didn't let themselves be filmed and have the video released without their knowledge. That would be a breach of privacy. An allegation of rape was made. That resulted in their privacy being "abused" as you put it. Now maybe in this jurisdiction, such an allegation would not result in their names being publicised, but in NI it does. You can't say their privacy was abused when, as defendants in a rape case, they were no longer entitled to that privacy.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Really? That's the standard now?

What if a guest in my home wandered into the spare room by accident and saw my model train set and conductor outfit. I could have an interest like that but also be embarrassed about people finding out.

If the above happened would I be daft and stupid for having invited people into my home?

What about Kate Middleton sunbathing topless. Was she daft and stupid for expecting privacy in a gated resort?

Slippery slope there my friend.

Reductio ad absurdum. Straw men. Anything else to add?

Zzippy

Zzippy wrote: »

They didn't let themselves be filmed and have the video released without their knowledge. That would be a breach of privacy. An allegation of rape was made. That resulted in their privacy being "abused" as you put it. Now maybe in this jurisdiction, such an allegation would not result in their names being publicised, but in NI it does. You can't say their privacy was abused when, as defendants in a rape case, they were no longer entitled to that privacy.

That's not what I'm saying, the conversation we are having here is speculative based on certain presumptions.