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

MJohnston · 04-04-2018 02:31PM

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".

So presuming here that you're referring to people who side with the court verdict yet are calling him 'stupid, immature, and daft' for the WhatsApp messages? Yes, this extremely hypothetical poster would be wrong to do so as if you're going entirely on the WhatsApp messages, Jackson sent nothing of any real disrepute.

But, who is doing this? Where is this hypothetical poster? I see a lot of people criticising the entire WhatsApp conversation as "stupid, immature, and daft" (not with those specific words, but that gist), but I don't know that I've seen anyone single out Jackson in particular for that.

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.

You're making some really weird equivalency here - I asked whether the girl with the Munster lads had video of her recorded and shared without her consent. How can you ever blame the girl if that is the case? Is she supposed to remain celibate or avoid sexual situations simply because of the risk that some man might secretly record what she is doing and share it?

A different example that is closer to the premise of the Ulster/Whatsapp conversation - a woman who sends some sexts to a boyfriend, they break up, and he sticks them on some revenge porn website. Again, the woman doesn't deserve any blame here, she has a reasonable expectation of privacy and respect, and someone violated that.

Ah, you might say, but the Ulster boys have a reasonable expectation of privacy too! Sure, but they aren't being blamed for being silly by generally sending messages to each other. They are being criticised because of the content of those messages, and the misogynistic and hateful language contained within them.

Foxtrol · 04-04-2018 02:33PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Do you believe it would be ok for the employer of the female complainant to suspend and investigate her for the texts she sent, where she used the same term as Gilroy? By your logic it was her own ‘stupid decision’ for using that term and she can’t ‘blame others when private conversations become public’.

04-04-2018 02:44PM

MJohnston wrote: »

You're making some really weird equivalency here - I asked whether the girl with the Munster lads had video of her recorded and shared without her consent. How can you ever blame the girl if that is the case? Is she supposed to remain celibate or avoid sexual situations simply because of the risk that some man might secretly record what she is doing and share it?

No, quite the opposite. I'm saying she should have the right to privacy in those circumstances. I agree with you. I'm saying that a celebrity should by rights also enjoy that privacy even though it's become socially acceptable and common that they are deprived that privacy. According to others in this thread they are in fact to blame if they fall foul of a privacy breach. Whilst I accept that the outcome is predictable given their status, It still doesn't make it right, even if society bays for that kind of content.

MJohnston wrote: »

A different example that is closer to the premise of the Ulster/Whatsapp conversation - a woman who sends some sexts to a boyfriend, they break up, and he sticks them on some revenge porn website. Again, the woman doesn't deserve any blame here, she has a reasonable expectation of privacy and respect, and someone violated that.

Ah, you might say, but the Ulster boys have a reasonable expectation of privacy too! Sure, but they aren't being blamed for being silly by generally sending messages to each other. They are being criticised because of the content of those messages, and the misogynistic and hateful language contained within them.

I again agree with this. The point I was making is that Paddy Jackson is the subject of intense hate but his involvement in those messages was minimal.

Given that fact and if you consider just for a second that the threesome was consensual, what did he do that was silly, immature and daft on the night in question?

Exposing themselves to potential embarrassment is the answer being given, but just like your example above - should they be celibate? Former Former wrote that "many many many people have issues with threesomes" but like I said, would we ban someone from playing for Ulster for being gay? Many many people also have an issue with that but thankfully we don't allow sexuality define the provincial selection policy. Why should it be any different with a threesome?

Digifriendly · 04-04-2018 02:47PM

If something is consensual does that make it right? There are many people out there who consensually commit adultery betraying their married partner most times without their partner knowing it. Does that make it right?

MJohnston · 04-04-2018 02:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

No, quite the opposite. I'm saying she should have the right to privacy in those circumstances. I agree with you. I'm saying that a celebrity should by rights also enjoy that privacy even though it's become socially acceptable and common that they are deprived that privacy. According to others in this thread they are in fact to blame if they fall foul of a privacy breach. Whilst I accept that the outcome is predictable given their status, It still doesn't make it right, even if society bays for that kind of content.

It wasn't a privacy breach, it was a legal process. The police asked for them and got them. You couldn't even claim it was a total privacy breach anyway, as messages were deleted and never recovered, as has been pointed out.

I again agree with this. The point I was making is that Paddy Jackson is the subject of intense hate but his involvement in those messages was minimal.

Given that fact and if you consider just for a second that the threesome was consensual, what did he do that was silly, immature and daft on the night in question?

Now you're asking a completely different question. Before you were asking what he did in relation to the messages that was "silly, immature, and daft", but now it's the night in question?

If you're talking about the latter option, the entire premise of your question is completely flawed because you're ruling out anyone having a different viewpoint to you on whether it was consensual or not. If you're suggesting that Paddy Jackson is the subject of intense hate only because of the WhatsApp conversation, then I don't know what to say to you other than you're completely incorrect.

baaba maal · 04-04-2018 03:00PM

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.

Oh, don't get me wrong- if it was just getting contact details, fair enough (and the Muliaina situation was deplorable). It might have been the way it was reported, but it seemed that the meeting between Les and the PSNI seemed more significant- I mean, put the boys working in a "normal" job and the press wouldn't be reporting that contact was made with the employer to establish the address and contact details of the perpetrator of an alleged sexual assault (and I accept that less detail would be given in a less high profile case).
I was struck at the time by the statement to the police that it was her against Ulster Rugby (or words very similar to that). I hope that in this case, the PSNI did not go to Ulster Rugby to allow them to be ahead of the news on this matter- that isn't the job of any police force, no matter how well-embedded into society the organisation is. If they went to a bishop before a priest was charged that would be viewed somewhat differently. I of course am not alleging that Ulster Rugby or anyone else in Irish rugby acted improperly and sympathise with them for the problem this has created.

The only conclusion I can draw from the whole sorry affair is that most people should call it a night after having 'eight cans, four pints, five vodkas, two gins and three shots'.

04-04-2018 03:02PM

MJohnston wrote: »

It wasn't a privacy breach, it was a legal process. The police asked for them and got them. You couldn't even claim it was a total privacy breach anyway, as messages were deleted and never recovered, as has been pointed out.

Ok this is just going around in circles now.

IBF said that even if there was no issue with consent, they were still silly, daft and immature in their actions.

I'm asking why so? If everything was consensual and no police were involved, what did Jackson do that would justify being called silly, daft and immature?

I'm not making a statement on innocence or guilt. People are arguing that given their status they are leaving themselves open to being embarrassed having sex with strangers, I'm simply saying why is it acceptable that they automatically don't have the same entitlement to privacy in such a circumstance as the level of privacy we would all want for the woman involved in the Munster incident?

04-04-2018 03:04PM

baaba maal wrote: »

The only conclusion I can draw from the whole sorry affair is that most people should call it a night after having 'eight cans, four pints, five vodkas, two gins and three shots'.

Sure that's only the night getting started!

baaba maal · 04-04-2018 03:10PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

I did not know this.

MJohnston · 04-04-2018 03:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Ok this is just going around in circles now.

IBF said that even if there was no issue with consent, they were still silly, daft and immature in their actions.

I'm asking why so? If everything was consensual and no police were involved, what did Jackson do that would justify being called silly, daft and immature?

I can't see where IBF said that myself, specifically the "even if there was no issue with consent" bit, which I believe he didn't want to engage with.

Buer · 04-04-2018 03:20PM

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

My point was that if you are going to hold Gilroy up to this standard then you better be prepared to hold everyone up to it because everyone has spoken (in some format) in a distasteful way at one point or another whether genuinely or in some form of dark humour. All of us.

Where do you draw the line? I guarantee the vast majority on here have used some sort of slur towards another collective group whether it's women, men, people of another religion, sexual orientation, colour etc. whether genuinely or in bad taste humour.

The IRFU possibly do have grounds to terminate Gilroy depending on what's specifically stipulated in their contract relating to bringing himself or the game into disrepute under their code of conduct. However, my overall point is that this is a dangerous precedent in a wider application; what is said in our private lives has the assumption of confidence and if it is held over us we are entering thought police territory.

04-04-2018 03:26PM

MJohnston wrote: »

I can't see where IBF said that myself, specifically the "even if there was no issue with consent" bit, which I believe he didn't want to engage with.

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?

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.

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 im asking you what actions Paddy took that you have an issue with?

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.

Here you go. This is what prompted my comparison to the Munster issue. It's a double standard that if Paddy Jackson get's drunk and is involved in a (consensual) sex act that might be embarrassing it's his own fault if it gets out, but the female who was with the other rugby players is a victim whose consent wasn't sought before images were shared.

MJohnston · 04-04-2018 03:33PM

Buer wrote: »

My point was that if you are going to hold Gilroy up to this standard then you better be prepared to hold everyone up to it because everyone has spoken (in some format) in a distasteful way at one point or another whether genuinely or in some form of dark humour. All of us.

Where do you draw the line? I guarantee the vast majority on here have used some sort of slur towards another collective group whether it's women, men, people of another religion, sexual orientation, colour etc. whether genuinely or in bad taste humour.

The IRFU possibly do have grounds to terminate Gilroy depending on what's specifically stipulated in their contract relating to bringing himself or the game into disrepute under their code of conduct. However, my overall point is that this is a dangerous precedent; what is said in our private lives has the assumption of confidence and if it is held over us we are entering thought police territory.

Eh, I'm not sure I can agree with the premise that everyone has said something equally distasteful. Perhaps in an abstract sense towards collectives as you say, especially with jokes, but in these messages, a lot of the language was directed towards specific individuals, which imo is a very different kettle of fish.

But ultimately, even if the premise was accurate, not everybody is a public figure, and more than that, a public figure for a rugby province that holds up family friendly values as something of a selling point. And additionally, you can still aspire to better values than you might actually achieve yourself.

On Gilroy specifically, I think he's done enough with his apology, perhaps he'll be made to go to respect classes or something, and that wouldn't be the worst thing in the world, but I don't think anyone here thinks he deserves anything worse.

baaba maal · 04-04-2018 03:36PM

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 understand your point about victim blaming. However, I don't think you have mentioned the single biggest determinant in "what happens next" (and therefore the consequences of his actions)- and that is, money.
As a high profile sportsman, knock yourself out with threesomes and follying-upper whatsapps, all you want, but expect that the sponsors won't be keen on being associated with such antics regardless of the issue of consent. It isn't that other people told tales, he made the event happen. In the general argument, it is victim-blaming to say a woman "wore particular clothes and that is why she was raped", but it is not to say "and he had a threesome, that was a bad decision".

A threesome isn't illegal, but it can be expensive.

Whether people like it or not, when sponsors don't want to spend money, high profile personnel can be ditched/reprimanded/whatever the consequences are. I think the Munster boys are very lucky, but as somebody said above, we don't know what sanctions may have been imposed. Because the names were never said officially (even though it was fairly common knowledge), the sponsors didn't have to acknowledge it.

baaba maal · 04-04-2018 03:38PM

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.

Couldn't you have used a team other than Leinster?
I have images. Bad images.

MJohnston · 04-04-2018 03:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Here you go. This is what prompted my comparison to the Munster issue. It's a double standard that if Paddy Jackson get's drunk and is involved in a (consensual) sex act that might be embarrassing it's his own fault if it gets out, but the female who was with the other rugby players is a victim whose consent wasn't sought before images were shared.

Again, you're presuming IBF was onboard with your consent hypothetical, but I'm not seeing that in his posts.

Either way, your not making equivalent comparisons still - in the first case the 'crime' is gossip, in the second the 'crime' is illicit recording of a sex act and then the unwanted distribution of those images. Those are far from equivalent things.

MJohnston · 04-04-2018 03:42PM

One thing I've been pondering. Olding and Gilroy, two players that really struggled to get into Schmidt's Ireland squads, to the extent that most of us were bemused by their exclusions, and when there seemed to be no apparent explanation. I do have to wonder if the immature attitude they display in those messages isn't visible in their other behaviours, as a connection to that.

baaba maal · 04-04-2018 03:43PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure that's only the night getting started!

I'm getting old!

04-04-2018 03:44PM

MJohnston wrote: »

Again, you're presuming IBF was onboard with your consent hypothetical, but I'm not seeing that in his posts.

Either way, your not making equivalent comparisons still - in the first case the 'crime' is gossip, in the second the 'crime' is illicit recording of a sex act and then the unwanted distribution of those images. Those are far from equivalent things.

If a famous rugby player had a one night stand, and the male or female in question took images and sold them to a newspaper, would you call the famous rugby player silly, daft and immature?

baaba maal · 04-04-2018 03:48PM

Deleted User wrote: »

If a famous rugby player had a one night stand, and the male or female in question took images and sold them to a newspaper, would you call the famous rugby player silly, daft and immature?

Media maths:
1+1=2 and a bit
1+2=2 gazillion

(allowing for some slight rounding-up)

04-04-2018 03:52PM

MJohnston wrote: »

One thing I've been pondering. Olding and Gilroy, two players that really struggled to get into Schmidt's Ireland squads, to the extent that most of us were bemused by their exclusions, and when there seemed to be no apparent explanation. I do have to wonder if the immature attitude they display in those messages isn't visible in their other behaviours, as a connection to that.

Olding has generally been picked for squads when fit. Him and Jackson were just back from the SA tour when the incident happened.

Gilroy just isn't good enough. Quality with ball in hand but has never had the same work rate in defence. Maybe it's attitude related but it's not the most obvious explanation.

MJohnston · 04-04-2018 04:13PM

Deleted User wrote: »

If a famous rugby player had a one night stand, and the male or female in question took images and sold them to a newspaper, would you call the famous rugby player silly, daft and immature?

They might well still be those 3 things, but I certainly wouldn't blame those attributes, or any of their attributes, for said images.

Assigning blame is different from quantifying risk though. Plus this is now a hypothetical that is completely detached from reality.

jm08 · 04-04-2018 04:23PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

Do you believe it would be ok for the employer of the female complainant to suspend and investigate her for the texts she sent, where she used the same term as Gilroy? By your logic it was her own ‘stupid decision’ for using that term and she can’t ‘blame others when private conversations become public’.

Which texts did she send. I don't think any were anything like these:

Other messages gave an insight into the highly chauvinistic tenor of the men’s conversations. “Any sluts get ****ed?” one friend asked Olding that day. “Pumped a girl with Jacko on Monday. Roasted her. Then another on Tuesday night,” McIlroy texted another person.

And “love Belfast sluts”– a text from McIlroy attached to a picture of Dara Florence and her two friends taken at the party. Those were the texts heard by the jury.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/inside-court-12-the-complete-story-of-the-belfast-rape-trial-1.3443620

04-04-2018 04:29PM

MJohnston wrote: »

They might well still be those 3 things, but I certainly wouldn't blame those attributes, or any of their attributes, for said images.

Assigning blame is different from quantifying risk though. Plus this is now a hypothetical that is completely detached from reality.

And you would say the same about the woman at the centre of the Munster incident right?

Its hypothetical until you ask my original question that if Paddy Jackson is telling the truth, what did he actually do wrong?

You accept that he is entitled to privacy in his sex life and you've acknowledged that his WhatsApp messages are relatively trivial. So why would we call him daft, silly and immature?

At the end of the day for all anyone knows - Jackson could be the one telling the truth. In that instance it's not hypothetical at all. He could be guilty of everything he is accused but that can't be proven at this point.

What do you do where you cant prove the accusation and the person's actions outside of the accusation are unremarkable?

What do you think should happen to Paddy Jackson?

04-04-2018 04:31PM

jm08 wrote: »

Which texts did she send. I don't think any were anything like these:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/inside-court-12-the-complete-story-of-the-belfast-rape-trial-1.3443620

I believe she also called the other girls in attendance at the house party sluts. I'm on the mobile so can't look up the exact quotes with ease.

mfceiling · 04-04-2018 04:34PM

So basically as a professional rugby player you are not allowed to engage in any sexual behaviour outside of what is deemed "normal"? Even if you and your partner are consenting adults.
Seems a bit odd.

If Best's wife asked him to consider a threesome does he refuse on the point of "can't love...I'm a professional rugby player and even though this is going to happen in a consensual manner I have to be careful in case anyone ever found out"

What's next?

Ian Henderson in shock scandal - the bus driver told him to stand behind the line but one of his feet were past it.

Chris Henry caught walking on grass even though the sign said "keep off the grass"

Paul Marshall pays £1.50 for bus journey even though the fare is now £1.55.

Surely an adult is allowed to make his own decisions (provided they are legal) within the confines of his own home?

Foxtrol · 04-04-2018 04:36PM

jm08 wrote: »

Which texts did she send. I don't think any were anything like these:

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/inside-court-12-the-complete-story-of-the-belfast-rape-trial-1.3443620

She used the same term to describe the girls at the party as Gilroy used

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43029719

jm08 · 04-04-2018 04:49PM

Foxtrol wrote: »

She used the same term to describe the girls at the party as Gilroy used

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-northern-ireland-43029719

She didn't actually. She said they acted in a 'slutter manner'. Thats different to calling them sluts. I don't think you could really discipline anyone for saying that.

McIlroy sent a text with a photo of 3 girls, calling them 'Belfast Sluts.'

jm08 · 04-04-2018 04:57PM

mfceiling wrote: »

So basically as a professional rugby player you are not allowed to engage in any sexual behaviour outside of what is deemed "normal"? Even if you and your partner are consenting adults.
Seems a bit odd.

If Best's wife asked him to consider a threesome does he refuse on the point of "can't love...I'm a professional rugby player and even though this is going to happen in a consensual manner I have to be careful in case anyone ever found out"

There is an issue over what consent is and which would be even harder to figure out when it involves random strangers who meet while pissed drunk in a nightclub and don't even get to know each others names.

If the Bests want to indulge in some sexual activity, I would hope they would do it with people they know and trust.

04-04-2018 05:02PM

jm08 wrote: »

There is an issue over what consent is and which would be even harder to figure out when it involves random strangers who meet while pissed drunk in a nightclub and don't even get to know each others names.

If the Bests want to indulge in some sexual activity, I would hope they would do it with people they know and trust.

This is an interesting comment when you take into account that most sexual assaults are committed by people who know each other.

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

Comments