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

bilston · 03-04-2018 10:54PM

Deleted User wrote: »

mfceiling wrote: »

Won't matter to some that he has apologised for his language on a "private" whatsapp message.

He could have apologised before Ulster Rugby began investigating him. Apologising after someone tells you you're in trouble isn't really worth anything. I'm not arguing that he has something to apologise for, but people seem desperately biased on here. "Oh look, a token apology, that makes everything ok".

On the other hand, Olding's humble statement of contrition after the trial vs Jackson's "I'LL SUE YOU ALL" means one came across very differently from the other. I would be ok with Olding playing rugby for an Irish province, I would not be ok with Jackson doing so.

I wish people would stop talking about "private", it's a red herring. The fact that a message was intended to be private is irrelevant as soon as it becomes public. It isn't a defense that "I only have these views in private because I know people would find it distasteful if I espoused them in public".

"Hey, I'm only a homophobe in private. I'm always nice to their faces" .... people think that's a justification?

People on here are biased!

Have you read Twitter recently?

prawnsambo · 03-04-2018 10:54PM

Bridge93 wrote: »

But is he threatening those who haven't crossed a line?

I'm no lawyer. But tweeting #IBelieveHer isn't libellous.

Bridge93 · 03-04-2018 10:55PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm no lawyer. But tweeting #IBelieveHer isn't libellous.

And has jacksons party said that's who they are threatening? Or people calling him a rapist among other things? I genuinely haven't seen either way, I've tried my best to ignore it all recently

prawnsambo · 03-04-2018 10:57PM

Bridge93 wrote: »

And has jacksons party said that's who they are threatening? Or people calling him a rapist among other things? I genuinely haven't seen either way, I've tried my best to ignore it all recently

From memory, that's what O'Riordan tweeted and was singled out for attention by his lawyers.

Bridge93 · 03-04-2018 10:57PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

From memory, that's what O'Riordan tweeted and was singled out for attention by his lawyers.

That's not all O Riordan tweeted

prawnsambo · 03-04-2018 10:59PM

Bridge93 wrote: »

That's not all O Riordan tweeted

Again from memory, he mostly paid tribute to her courage and the ordeal whe went through. But it's a while since I saw it and I just remember it being innocuous enough.

Edit: I couldn't see anything that made any specific allegation that was actionalble.

Bridge93 · 03-04-2018 11:01PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Again from memory, he mostly paid tribute to her courage and the ordeal whe went through. But it's a while since I saw it and I just remember it being innocuous enough.

He made some comment along the lines of, 'smug, middle class and well connected boys win out again'.

salmocab · 03-04-2018 11:02PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Again from memory, he mostly paid tribute to her courage and the ordeal whe went through. But it's a while since I saw it and I just remember it being innocuous enough.

Edit: I couldn't see anything that made any specific allegation that was actionalble.

He suggested that they got away with it because they were middle class and well connected if I remember right

prawnsambo · 03-04-2018 11:02PM

Bridge93 wrote: »

He made some comment along the lines of, 'smug, middle class and well connected boys win out again'.

That's not actionable. Not by a long, long way. The strongest statement in it was the hashtag.

Bridge93 · 03-04-2018 11:04PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's not actionable. Not by a long, long way.

You've already said your not a lawyer. I'd trust their sense of judgement more than anyone here. It's pretty clearly questioning the integrity of the court

prawnsambo · 03-04-2018 11:05PM

salmocab wrote: »

He suggested that they got away with it because they were middle class and well connected if I remember right

I think Bridge quoted it correctly above. That's in no way actionable. It is literally a statement of fact, if somewhat hyperbolic.

prawnsambo · 03-04-2018 11:08PM

Bridge93 wrote: »

You've already said your not a lawyer. I'd trust their sense of judgement more than anyone here. It's pretty clearly questioning the integrity of the court

I know enough to know that libel is horrendously difficult to prove. And very expensive. The first thing you have to prove is that it caised damage. That's a pretty big mountain to get over before you get to the nitty gritty of whether or not it's fair comment, the meaning, the intention and whether it affected opinion.

Bridge93 · 03-04-2018 11:11PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

I know enough to know that libel is horrendously difficult to prove. And very expensive. The first thing you have to prove is that it caised damage. That's a pretty big mountain to get over before you get to the nitty gritty of whether or not it's fair comment.

I don't think for a second it'll see a courtroom but the substance of the second part of the tweet is pretty clear. I don't think they really care too much regarding these nobodies tweeting #suemepaddy, but it would seem a reasonable step to stop higher profile names pushing the boundaries further and further

They definitely are not going to sue anyone for tweeting I believe her. Oldings statement would suggest as much

Hard to sue 2000 people at once too

salmocab · 03-04-2018 11:14PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

I think Bridge quoted it correctly above. That's in no way actionable. It is literally a statement of fact, if somewhat hyperbolic.

And certainly ironic as he’s s middle class guy who lost his seat in the dail and was handed a seat in the senate.

Burkie1203 · 03-04-2018 11:17PM

The hypocrisy is disgusting. Gilroy used the same word as the alleged victim and has apologised. Just park it and move on.

Bridge93 · 03-04-2018 11:20PM

Did he not campaign to abolish the Seanad? The middle class line is ironic for a number of reasons.

Anyway we move on

prawnsambo · 03-04-2018 11:20PM

salmocab wrote: »

And certainly ironic as he’s s middle class guy who lost his seat in the dail and was handed a seat in the senate.

Ah here! I'm not endorsing the guy.

But fair comment is fair comment. You can have an opinion and express it. So long as you don't cross the line, that's perfetly fair. But don't go throwing out lawsuits to shut people up if you've no intention of following through. That's just bullying. Donald Trump is a perfect example of that.

Edit: I just remembered George Hook threeatening to sue Jonny Sexton.

The Black Stags · 03-04-2018 11:24PM

When is the team for Friday announced?

..and will we have enough players left by then.

CatFromHue · 04-04-2018 12:05AM

this is very different than just saying ibelieve her, he's implying that it wasn't a fair trial.

I don't know why he's bringng class into this either but it's good for anti establisment politics I suppose

04-04-2018 12:17AM

So the argument is, publicly disagreeing with a verdict is by and of itself defamatory and legally sanctionable?

I don't buy it for an instant!

The comment about smug well-connected middle-class boys is bollocks of the highest order, but I don't see how that is defamatory either.

Defamation is difficult to prove and inordinately expensive (in the UK, legal costs for each party generally run to around £700,000 and I can't imagine it's any cheaper over here).

Podge_irl · 04-04-2018 05:56AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

It was intended to be private. But it ended up public. It still staggers me that people don't realise that where the internet is concerned, the potential is always there for stuff to get out into the public domain. And that includes messaging of any kind. People have sent emails to the wrong person by mistake.

The internet has nothing to do with anything. Those could have equally been text messages or bloody letters. It was private correspondence that only came to light due to the trial.

Presuming Jackson can read he is well aware that the chances of him playing for Ireland again are slim. He is out a lot of money from the trial and still has legions of people questioning his very innocence (never mind his behavior wrt the messages). I’d be angry and suing every last person I could to be honest.

Former Former · 04-04-2018 07:05AM

Podge_irl wrote: »

I’d be angry and suing every last person I could to be honest.

Fair enough - but it couldn't wait?

It was a PR nightmare to begin with, threatening to sue people in the immediate aftermath was not a good move for him personally or his employers, it just poured petrol on the flames

MJohnston · 04-04-2018 07:05AM

Bridge93 wrote: »

If people aren't saying anything libellous then they have nothing to worry about regarding threats of action.

Oh to believe it was that simple. Legal action costs money for both defendant and plaintiff in civil suits, so if you're sued, even if it is completely unlikely to succeed, it will still be very costly for you.

MJohnston · 04-04-2018 07:08AM

Former Former wrote: »

Fair enough - but it couldn't wait?

It was a PR nightmare to begin with, threatening to sue people in the immediate aftermath was not a good move for him personally or his employers, it just poured petrol on the flames

He's singlehandedly ensuring that the story will not drop out of people's minds as quickly as it might have. Olding's approach was infinitely smarter, not that I have any respect left for either of them, but it was a more effective response.

prawnsambo · 04-04-2018 07:09AM

Podge_irl wrote: »

The internet has nothing to do with anything. Those could have equally been text messages or bloody letters. It was private correspondence that only came to light due to the trial.

Presuming Jackson can read he is well aware that the chances of him playing for Ireland again are slim. He is out a lot of money from the trial and still has legions of people questioning his very innocence (never mind his behavior wrt the messages). I’d be angry and suing every last person I could to be honest.

Which possibility I directly addressed in my post that you replied to. :rolleyes:

Buer · 04-04-2018 07:35AM

Deleted User wrote: »

I wish people would stop talking about "private", it's a red herring. The fact that a message was intended to be private is irrelevant as soon as it becomes public. It isn't a defense that "I only have these views in private because I know people would find it distasteful if I espoused them in public".

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.

baaba maal · 04-04-2018 07:40AM

Deleted User wrote: »

So the argument is, publicly disagreeing with a verdict is by and of itself defamatory and legally sanctionable?

I don't buy it for an instant!

The comment about smug well-connected middle-class boys is bollocks of the highest order, but I don't see how that is defamatory either.

Defamation is difficult to prove and inordinately expensive (in the UK, legal costs for each party generally run to around £700,000 and I can't imagine it's any cheaper over here).

I'm not agreeing with O'Riordain's sentiment about them being middle class, but am surprised that the issue of the PSNI talking to Les Kiss before the trial has not garnered more attention. The events occurred at a private residence and there was no indication that Les was present, so why speak to him at all? If anybody has insight into this I would appreciate it as I find it genuinely puzzling.

prawnsambo · 04-04-2018 07:58AM

Buer wrote: »

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.

No need to hand them in, they already have them.

But you're being a bit naive to say that we shouldn't be held accountable or shouldn't expect to be held accountable for things we say. Every communication we make has some kind of internal or external censor. You wouldn't say such things to a customer or work colleague in an email or even in a post on here. You might say them in a WhatsApp group, but only if you believe that nobody in the group would be offended or even outraged by them.

In short, we make decisions about the things we say and the language we use based on the medium and the expected audience. But outside that, we also often ask the question of ourselves, would we be comfortable making those statements. That internal censor apppears to be missing in those texts.

prawnsambo · 04-04-2018 08:00AM

baaba maal wrote: »

I'm not agreeing with O'Riordain's sentiment about them being middle class, but am surprised that the issue of the PSNI talking to Les Kiss before the trial has not garnered more attention. The events occurred at a private residence and there was no indication that Les was present, so why speak to him at all? If anybody has insight into this I would appreciate it as I find it genuinely puzzling.

It may have been to get in contact with the Ulster players. According to Jackson, it was a text from Les Kiss that informed him the PSNI wanted to talk to him.

Buer · 04-04-2018 08:07AM

prawnsambo wrote: »

But you're being a bit naive to say that we shouldn't be held accountable or shouldn't expect to be held accountable for things we say. Every communication we make has some kind of internal or external censor. You wouldn't say such things to a customer or work colleague in an email or even in a post on here. You might say them in a WhatsApp group, but only if you believe that nobody in the group would be offended or even outraged by them.

In short, we make decisions about the things we say and the language we use based on the medium and the expected audience. But outside that, we also often ask the question of ourselves, would we be comfortable making those statements. That internal censor apppears to be missing in those texts.

Of course I wouldn't, that would be dense in the extreme. I was referring to private mediums or conversations outside public remit. I'd expect to have action taken if I posted on Facebook or here etc. Or if I spoke with someone when officially representing my employer i.e. a customer etc. But that isn't what happened here.

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. There's an expectation of privacy in that regard. The words are not for public consumption.

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

Comments