Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

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

1…8586889091…336

Comments

  • #2612
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,404 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    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. There's an expectation of privacy in that regard. The words are not for public consumption.
    Yes, but there's no inherent expectation of privacy there either. The same as in a face to face conversation. Either overheard by somebody else, or repeated by the person you're talking to. When I originally mentioned the internet with regard to people's (imo misguided) expectation of privacy, what I meant is that these messages are there permanently to be re-broadcast or read by anyone with access to the device or devices they were sent to.

    That's what I meant by your internal censor. There should be an awareness that the possibility exists of texts and messages being read by people other than the intended recipient(s).


  • #2613
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 20,606 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    MJohnston wrote: »
    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.

    This shows why it doesn't matter at all. The damage is done and it's not like things could get much worse, there isn't much worse you can be accused off than what they've already been accused off so taking legal action to protect your name isn't going to make things worse.

    It may drag things out longer but I think politicians like Aodhan o Riordan and Ruth Coppinger hitching their wagon to this is going to ensure that it won't fall out of public discourse any time soon.

    As for the tweet, don't forget that came from a law maker. Someone who has the power to propose legislation. It's a dangerous precedent to have the legislative branch undermine the judicial. It's forgivable because it's two separate jurisdictions but it certainly highlights the utter stupidity of Aodhan to wade into an issue like this purely on populist grounds.

    As for Oldings comments, that was also foolish. I doubt the alleged victim will drop anonymity to take a civil action against the defendants but if she did that statement would be used against Olding in my opinion.

    Not that he admitted to anything, but we've seen how quickly words and sentiment can be twisted to present a different argument.


  • #2614
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 20,606 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    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.

    Let's not forget that based on a false accusation against Mills Mulliana, the police in Wales attempted to arrest him at half time during a pro12 game. The sports media that were there couldn't understand why there was crime reporters showing up at the grounds until the police moved on Mills at half time and Connacht managed to delay things until full time.

    Then in front of cameras he was hand cuffed and put in a van on live TV.

    The accusation was that he had pinched someone's bum in a club and it ended up not being him.

    The papers were reporting on a 'sexual assault' that evening and the next day.

    I wouldn't be at all puzzled with the police going to Les Kiss and Ulster rugby.


  • #2615
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,718 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    MJohnston wrote: »
    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.

    So you’ve no respect but are happy to see Olding put up some good PR?

    This whole charade is turning in to some joke. If you’ve no respect for either of them then how does Oldings statement make the slightest bit of difference.


  • #2616
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,404 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Let's not forget that based on a false accusation against Mills Mulliana, the police in Wales attempted to arrest him at half time during a pro12 game. The sports media that were there couldn't understand why there was crime reporters showing up at the grounds until the police moved on Mills at half time and Connacht managed to delay things until full time.

    Then in front of cameras he was hand cuffed and put in a van on live TV.

    The accusation was that he had pinched someone's bum in a club and it ended up not being him.

    The papers were reporting on a 'sexual assault' that evening and the next day.

    I wouldn't be at all puzzled with the police going to Les Kiss and Ulster rugby.
    Are you implying that this was an effort to make a big thing of it in the media? Because the two situations are completely different. In Mils case, he was only in the jurisdiction for the match. The police would have had to go to the stadium or else the airport. The obvious choice would be the stadium.

    As I said above, Les Kiss would have been the most obvious point of contact if Jackson was not at home. He was on holidays at the time and could have been anywhere.


  • Advertisement
  • #2617
    RuMan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 469 ✭✭RuMan


    So nobody talking about rugby on this rugby forum?


  • #2618
    b.gud
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,905 ✭✭✭b.gud


    The year: 2025.

    In a baron wasteland ruined by a series of nuclear strikes, instigated much to everyones surprise by Michael D Higgins, a lone survivor wanders in search of food water and shelter.
    In the distance he sees an object attached to a parachute slowly fall from the sky. Hopeful that it might be aid or food he rushes towards it. When he finally reaches the landing site, exhausted, he find only a bottle with a message in it. Disappointed but not demoralised he still holds hope that the bottle may contain details of a camp of survivors or where he can find help.

    Slowly, hopefully, he opens the bottle reads the message and begins to sob. It reads "Shocking new revelations in the Belfast rape trial, for full details check out independent.ie"


  • #2619
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Let's not forget that based on a false accusation against Mills Mulliana

    Let's be very clear that no one ever said it was a false accusation. The case was dropped because of a lack of evidence.

    So Muliaina is of course considered entirely innocent - but it doesn't follow that the accusation was therefore false.

    This is not semantics, it's very important.


  • #2620
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    RuMan wrote: »
    So nobody talking about rugby on this rugby forum?

    Plenty of discussion about rugby in other threads. You obviously haven't looked.

    For players who act sensibly, it's the only thing that'll ever be discussed about them. At the moment, that's not the case.


  • #2621
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 20,606 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    Are you implying that this was an effort to make a big thing of it in the media? Because the two situations are completely different. In Mils case, he was only in the jurisdiction for the match. The police would have had to go to the stadium or else the airport. The obvious choice would be the stadium.

    As I said above, Les Kiss would have been the most obvious point of contact if Jackson was not at home. He was on holidays at the time and could have been anywhere.

    I'm not suggesting that, I'm just suggesting that the police are capable of having questionable motives.

    The police could have reached out to the Gardai or informed the individual that they were wanted for questioning. They absolutely didn't need to wait for him to be in the jurisdiction to inform him that he was under investigation. They also didn't need to tip off the media that they were going to make an arrest but that's a separate story.

    With regards to going to Les Kiss, the police are entitled to do that, but again if you are innocent of something and the police show up at your employers before you've had a chance to answer the charge they are doing damage to your reputation. I'm not getting into a pointless debate about police procedure, I'm just saying I wouldn't presume one way or the other what their motives were.


  • Advertisement
  • #2622
    RuMan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 469 ✭✭RuMan


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Plenty of discussion about rugby in other threads. You obviously haven't looked.

    For players who act sensibly, it's the only thing that'll ever be discussed about them. At the moment, that's not the case.

    So edinburgh how are we feeling?


  • #2623
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 20,606 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Former Former wrote: »
    Let's be very clear that no one ever said it was a false accusation. The case was dropped because of a lack of evidence.

    So Muliaina is of course considered entirely innocent - but it doesn't follow that the accusation was therefore false.

    This is not semantics, it's very important.

    The lack of evidence being an inability to identify what Mills had been wearing that evening. Mills actually wanted the trial to go ahead so he could clear his name.

    The point stands however and legal commentators were outraged at the manner of his arrest. It was a publicity show.


  • #2624
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting that, I'm just suggesting that the police are capable of having questionable motives.

    The police could have reached out to the Gardai or informed the individual that they were wanted for questioning. They absolutely didn't need to wait for him to be in the jurisdiction to inform him that he was under investigation. They also didn't need to tip off the media that they were going to make an arrest but that's a separate story.

    With regards to going to Les Kiss, the police are entitled to do that, but again if you are innocent of something and the police show up at your employers before you've had a chance to answer the charge they are doing damage to your reputation. I'm not getting into a pointless debate about police procedure, I'm just saying I wouldn't presume one way or the other what their motives were.

    They absolutely did not wait for him to be in the jurisdiction. Connacht were fully aware, they decided not to tell him because they wanted him to play the game.

    Reaching out to employers is completely standard in the UK at least, have seen it first hand.


  • #2625
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 20,606 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Plenty of discussion about rugby in other threads. You obviously haven't looked.

    For players who act sensibly, it's the only thing that'll ever be discussed about them. At the moment, that's not the case.

    Again, from Paddy Jacksons point of view he could have had a consensual threesome and sent a questionable but hardly egregious whatsapp message.

    If you take the accusations out of the equation do you really think he'd have spent one match off the pitch as a consequence?

    I think not.


  • #2626
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,404 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm not suggesting that, I'm just suggesting that the police are capable of having questionable motives.

    The police could have reached out to the Gardai or informed the individual that they were wanted for questioning. They absolutely didn't need to wait for him to be in the jurisdiction to inform him that he was under investigation. They also didn't need to tip off the media that they were going to make an arrest but that's a separate story.

    With regards to going to Les Kiss, the police are entitled to do that, but again if you are innocent of something and the police show up at your employers before you've had a chance to answer the charge they are doing damage to your reputation. I'm not getting into a pointless debate about police procedure, I'm just saying I wouldn't presume one way or the other what their motives were.
    It's hard to know where to start with this post. The obvious contradiction I suppose. Followed by the equally obvious accusation against the police of tipping off the press. When it's almost cliché at this stage that the press monitor police radio frequencies. And the even more obvious fact that they turned up at a stadium holding thousands of people. With phones. And Press. Already there.

    And you absolutely, do not allow somebody accused of a crime, leave the jurisdiction if you can prevent it. Talk to the Gardai? What use is that? The Gardai can't arrest you or even bring you in for questioning for an alleged crime committed in another jurisdiction. And even if they could, a denial just ends that process dead.


  • #2627
    RuMan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 469 ✭✭RuMan


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    Again, from Paddy Jacksons point of view he could have had a consensual threesome and sent a questionable but hardly egregious whatsapp message.

    If you take the accusations out of the equation do you really think he'd have spent one match off the pitch as a consequence?

    I think not.

    Can mods not ban non rugby talk?


  • #2628
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The lack of evidence being an inability to identify what Mills had been wearing that evening. Mills actually wanted the trial to go ahead so he could clear his name.

    The point stands however and legal commentators were outraged at the manner of his arrest. It was a publicity show.

    The point about his arrest is very valid; it was outrageous.

    The distinction between charges being dropped and a false allegation is incredibly important and we have to get a better understanding of that. There is absolutely no suggestion that the allegation against Muiliaina was false.


  • #2629
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Again, from Paddy Jacksons point of view he could have had a consensual threesome and sent a questionable but hardly egregious whatsapp message.

    If you take the accusations out of the equation do you really think he'd have spent one match off the pitch as a consequence?

    I think not.

    That's a pointless exercise, however.

    From Paddy Jackson's point of view he'd probably be the starting out half for Ireland and wouldn't have missed a single game. But that's a fantasy now.


  • #2630
    MJohnston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,917 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    awec wrote: »
    So you’ve no respect but are happy to see Olding put up some good PR?

    This whole charade is turning in to some joke. If you’ve no respect for either of them then how does Oldings statement make the slightest bit of difference.

    I didn't say it made any difference to me, but it's clearly objectively a better approach from how differently the general public have responded to the two players. And where did I say that I was "happy to see Olding put up some good PR"? Why are you making that up?


  • #2631
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 20,606 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Former Former wrote: »
    The point about his arrest is very valid; it was outrageous.

    The distinction between charges being dropped and a false allegation is incredibly important and we have to get a better understanding of that. There is absolutely no suggestion that the allegation against Muiliaina was false.

    Well there was a suggestion, he said they were false. You are correct in your distinction but it's not the point I'm making, the publicity generated around his arrest was intentional and not rooted in justice.


  • Advertisement
  • #2632
    $ausage$
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 691 ✭✭✭$ausage$


    Remember the good old days when it was just a case of keeping Ruan......


  • #2633
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 20,606 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    That's a pointless exercise, however.

    From Paddy Jackson's point of view he'd probably be the starting out half for Ireland and wouldn't have missed a single game. But that's a fantasy now.

    Sure but then why say:

    "For players who act sensibly, it's the only thing that'll ever be discussed about them".


  • #2634
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Well there was a suggestion, he said they were false. You are correct in your distinction but it's not the point I'm making, the publicity generated around his arrest was intentional and not rooted in justice.

    Just to be clear, his club were asked for him to be made available to the police before the game and in private. They decided not to do this, they decided not to tell him.


  • #2635
    foxyladyxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 857 ✭✭✭foxyladyxx


    awec wrote: »
    So you’ve no respect but are happy to see Olding put up some good PR?

    This whole charade is turning in to some joke. If you’ve no respect for either of them then how does Oldings statement make the slightest bit of difference.

    I believe it would have helped Paddy enormously if he had made an apology. He could have said that he was sorry IF his behaviour caused any offense to the girl in question. It would have helped somewhat. Instead he became the target for the twitter backlash. Olding got away lightly by comparison.

    Then to threaten to sue added fuel to the fire and he suffered a further backlash under the suemepaddy hashtag.

    Yes a PR consultant would have helped more than his legal advisors.

    I do get that he was extremely angry for what he and his family were put through by the media on a daily basis.

    But a PR consultant would have gauged the public reaction better and would have given him better advice.

    For me I lost respect for him because he came across as an arrogant twat.

    But as a lifelong and passionate rugby supporter I would have had Jackson and Olding back in my squad regardless.

    I work in the PR sector.


  • #2636
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,404 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    $ausage$ wrote: »
    Remember the good old days when it was just a case of keeping Ruan......
    Or getting rid of Les Kiss. :)

    At this stage, I think Les probably had his bags packed for the last six months. And is now sending wind-up postcards to Jonno Gibbes. :D


  • #2637
    MJohnston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,917 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    foxyladyxx wrote: »
    He could have said that he was sorry IF his behaviour caused any offense to the girl in question.

    I don't think you've been on Twitter for most of #MeToo if you think an 'if' qualified apology would have helped him!


  • #2638
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Sure but then why say:

    "For players who act sensibly, it's the only thing that'll ever be discussed about them".

    Because neither of these players acted remotely sensibly? :confused:


  • #2639
    MJohnston
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,917 ✭✭✭✭MJohnston


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Because neither of these players acted remotely sensibly? :confused:

    I think it's the other part of the sentence that is confusing - you mean "For players who act sensibly, rugby is the only thing that will be discussed about them", right?


  • #2640
    foxyladyxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 857 ✭✭✭foxyladyxx


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I don't think you've been on Twitter for most of #MeToo if you think an 'if' qualified apology would have helped him!

    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.

    That wouldn't have happend if he had not threatened to sue.

    He should have waited to guage public reaction rather than throwing fuel on to the fire.


  • Advertisement
  • #2641
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    MJohnston wrote: »
    I think it's the other part of the sentence that is confusing - you mean "For players who act sensibly, rugby is the only thing that will be discussed about them", right?

    Yes, that's what I meant


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement