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

bilston · 06-04-2018 02:23PM

Former Former wrote: »

I'll tell you what though. I want to see some really good performances from Piutau in the next four weeks, or else I'll be branding him a complete waste of money.

And I know that's not going to go down well with some of the Ulster lads. So here's hoping.

The next 4 weeks are fairly irrelevant. Maybe we can still be in contention to qualify for Europe but that will need Benetton to under perform as they have a relatively gentle run in.

Two things about Piutau.

1) He has done wonders for Stockdale
2) Last season he carries us a few times to wins. Clermont at home, Scarlets at home and Glasgow away immediately spring to mind.

Has he been worth the money? Probably not. Although I don't think he can be blamed for that.

Either way the next 4 weeks aren't really going to change the narrative on his time here.

06-04-2018 02:24PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Wishful thinking

It's not at all. The IRFU can't just tear up a contract because of bad publicity. I've said repeatedly that I have zero expectation they will stay at Ulster and the musings coming from their camp is to give them some ammunition in whatever exit deal they reach with the IRFU.

But from a legal point of view the only thing the IRFU can challenge them on are those messages and it doesn't really give them a lot to go on, especially in Jackson's case.

Separate to that however, I see a lot of people are extremely disgusted with those messages. I think they are juvenile and extremely cringe but if there had been no trial I have zero doubt the punishments for those messages surfacing would have been minimal.

I'm asking this in the context of that add posted in the Belfast Telegraph. It says that regardless of the trial the players should be removed because of their attitudes and messages. I'm asking if you reversed the genders, would people say the same thing?

irishbucsfan · 06-04-2018 02:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not at all. The IRFU can't just tear up a contract because of bad publicity. I've said repeatedly that I have zero expectation they will stay at Ulster and the musings coming from their camp is to give them some ammunition in whatever exit deal they reach with the IRFU.

But from a legal point of view the only thing the IRFU can challenge them on are those messages and it doesn't really give them a lot to go on, especially in Jackson's case.

You say this as if you know it's the case. You should rewind on the certainty there.

bilston · 06-04-2018 02:28PM

Brewster wrote: »

errlloyd wrote: »

I believe he is full of self pity. That he really regrets being there. And that he really regrets the damage he did himself.

I don't believe for one second he feels any empathy for the girl.

ErrLloyd, i think in the cold light of day, all 5 people ended up in a situation they regretted. Paddy has a sister and mother, what do you think the conversations have been like with them? I have no doubt he has empathy for the girl.

To be fair, if Jackson genuinely believes that the girl is full of s*** he probably wouldn't have any sympathy for her at all.

MJohnston · 06-04-2018 02:30PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The IRFU and Ulster rugby can only take action at the two players through the prism of those messages.

ehhhh, I really doubt even you think that with certainty.

06-04-2018 02:30PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You say this as if you know it's the case. You should rewind on the certainty there.

I'm not speaking from certainty, I'm just speaking from a great deal of relevant experience.

MJohnston · 06-04-2018 02:32PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm asking if you reversed the genders, would people say the same thing?

But this is a hypothetical question based on the assumption you still won't let go of, which is that everyone is only mad about the messages. Errlloyd response to this question was spot on.

06-04-2018 02:33PM

MJohnston wrote: »

ehhhh, I really doubt even you think that.

I don't think that, I know that.

The IRFU have absolutely no visibility or control over what Jackson does in his house. What he does in his bedroom does not in anyway overlap with his employment contract unless he has done something to break the law.

As a jury has found that he hasn't the only 'public' aspect of the damage caused are those messages.

Again, I've no doubt the IRFU are thinking about the entirety of the situation in their dealings, but from a legal point of view they are limited in terms of what they can sanction to those messages.

Buer · 06-04-2018 02:36PM

Deleted User wrote: »

MJohnston wrote: »

ehhhh, I really doubt even you think that.

I don't think that, I know that.

The IRFU have absolutely no visibility or control over what Jackson does in his house. What he does in his bedroom does not in anyway overlap with his employment contract unless he has done something to break the law..

Well, if the media reports were to be believed, the two Munster players were both brought in and reprimanded for their conduct in a situation that took place behind closed doors a few years ago.

We're not privy to what's covered under their code of conduct.

irishbucsfan · 06-04-2018 02:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not speaking from certainty, I'm just speaking from a great deal of relevant experience.

Experience in testing the disrepute clause of major public Irish sporting figures during the fallout of a public rape trial?

irishbucsfan · 06-04-2018 02:38PM

Buer wrote: »

Well, if the media reports were to be believed, the two Munster players were both brought in and reprimanded for their conduct in a situation that took place behind closed doors a few years ago.

We're not privy to what's covered under their code of conduct.

Not only do we ourselves not know what is in their contract (although Fanning seems to have done some digging), the IRFU and their lawyers themselves don't even know, really, how it would hold up if tested. Has any Irish sportsperson been relieved of duty for anything like this in the past? Could well have happened in the LoI, I don't follow it myself.

06-04-2018 02:38PM

MJohnston wrote: »

But this is a hypothetical question based on the assumption you still won't let go of, which is that everyone is only mad about the messages. Errlloyd response to this question was spot on.

Ok so, firstly, this was in response to the add in the Belfast Telegraph which reads as follows:

"The content of the social media exchanges involving Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding was reprehensible.

"Such behaviour falls far beneath the standards that your organisations represent.

"As such we demand that neither of these men represents Ulster or Ireland now or at any point in the future."

The ad is specific that despite the trial, the messages should result in expulsion. The text is very clear.

What I'm asking is, would people sack them for the messages alone and if so, would they sack two women for making similar comments about men?

Yes it's hypothetical, but it's a hypothetical created by the content of the ad itself.

ELM327 · 06-04-2018 02:40PM

errlloyd wrote: »

I believe he is full of self pity. That he really regrets being there. And that he really regrets the damage he did himself.

I don't believe for one second he feels any empathy for the girl.

Nor should he, as he's an innocent man
A fact you seem to be forgetting.

06-04-2018 02:40PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Experience in testing the disrepute clause of major public Irish sporting figures during the fallout of a public rape trial?

Experience of drafting such clauses for a variety of organisations and experience of signing several of them myself both with sports organisations and with sponsors.

Employment contracts have a wide scope in many ways but they don't extend to the bedroom.

errlloyd · 06-04-2018 02:42PM

ELM327 wrote: »

Nor should he, as he's an innocent man
A fact you seem to be forgetting.

He is not guilty beyond a reasonably doubt, that is the only fact.

MJohnston · 06-04-2018 02:42PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't think that, I know that.

The IRFU have absolutely no visibility or control over what Jackson does in his house. What he does in his bedroom does not in anyway overlap with his employment contract unless he has done something to break the law.

As a jury has found that he hasn't the only 'public' aspect of the damage caused are those messages.

Again, I've no doubt the IRFU are thinking about the entirety of the situation in their dealings, but from a legal point of view they are limited in terms of what they can sanction to those messages.

This just reads like absolutely made up bluffery. Here's the completely opposite view from an actual lawyer (helpfully they're specifically remarking on another sportsperson charged with sexual assault case):

http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/criminal-offences-outside-work-what-can-employers-do

Some choice quotes:

There is no general right to sack an employee because they have been charged with or convicted of a criminal offence. Instead employers must consider the effect of the charge or conviction on the individual's suitability to do the job and their relationship with their employer, work colleagues and customers. Relevant matters include the nature of the offence, the nature of the person’s job, the extent to which it involves contact with other employees or the public, and the employee’s seniority or rank.

However, employers generally cannot make unsubstantiated assertions that their reputation has been damaged. If they want to dismiss an employee on this basis they would need to point to examples of customers withdrawing contracts or refusing to allow them to tender because of the charge or conviction.

In Sunderland’s case it is likely that the club dismissed Johnson to protect its standing with fans as a family club, its general worldwide image, and because his teammates might object to playing alongside him.

Can you sack before the employee has been found guilty?

In some cases it may be possible to dismiss an employee on the basis of the charge alone. This will usually only be the case if the offence is a very serious one. For example, the dismissal of a staff member because they had been charged with murder was ruled to be fair. A charge of rape or child sex offences may be regarded in the same way. If the individual is acquitted of the offence this does not mean that the dismissal will necessarily be unfair. This is because the employer is not held to an absolute standard of proof when making its decision to terminate; it is only required to act reasonably.
An employer considering dismissal must still comply with basic principles of fairness, such as giving the employee the opportunity to state their case and taking into account any mitigating circumstances.

foxyladyxx · 06-04-2018 02:42PM

Wegians89 wrote: »

Jackson’s new statement today leaves me thinking he doesn’t want to leave

He did the right thing but should have done it sooner. .I would love nothing more than for him to be reinstated. Have tweeted to that effect.

ELM327 · 06-04-2018 02:45PM

errlloyd wrote: »

He is not guilty beyond a reasonably doubt, that is the only fact.

No, he's an innocent man.
He is not guilty of any crime and is free to go as he pleases. Without legal impediment.

And anyone who states otherwise (eg that he is a rapist) is guilty of slander and I would fully support any legal challenge he would/could/should make.

#lockherup

06-04-2018 02:48PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Experience of drafting such clauses for a variety of organisations and experience of signing several of them myself both with sports organisations and with sponsors.

Employment contracts have a wide scope in many ways but they don't extend to the bedroom.

Both morals clauses / restrictive covenants have been vindicated in individual EU courts and the ECJ. Unfortunately your experience isn't matched by specific knowledge.

irishbucsfan · 06-04-2018 02:50PM

ELM327 wrote: »

Nor should he, as he's an innocent man
A fact you seem to be forgetting.

That's not a fact, in the way that you think it is (IE, he is innocent until proven guilty, but not proven innocent)

06-04-2018 02:51PM

MJohnston wrote: »

This just reads like absolutely made up bluffery. Here's the completely opposite view from an actual lawyer (helpfully they're specifically remarking on another sportsperson charged with sexual assault case):

http://www.hrmagazine.co.uk/article-details/criminal-offences-outside-work-what-can-employers-do

Some choice quotes:

Made up bluffery?

So, here is a better article, also by a lawyer and specifically about this case:

http://www.aocsolicitors.ie/irfu-ulster-rugby-must-comply-with-employment-law-not-public-opinion/

errlloyd · 06-04-2018 02:52PM

ELM327 wrote: »

No, he's an innocent man.
He is not guilty of any crime and is free to go as he pleases. Without legal impediment.

And anyone who states otherwise (eg that he is a rapist) is guilty of slander and I would fully support any legal challenge he would/could/should make.

#lockherup

You know slander hasn't been a crime in decade right? I don't work in the law, but I spent four years in UCD studying it so I could act smarter in arguments on boards.

6.— (1) The tort of libel and the tort of slander—

(a) shall cease to be so described, and

(b) shall, instead, be collectively described, and are referred to in this Act, as the “ tort of defamation ”.

- Defamation Act 2009.

irishbucsfan · 06-04-2018 02:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Made up bluffery?

So, here is a better article, also by a lawyer and specifically about this case:

http://www.aocsolicitors.ie/irfu-ulster-rugby-must-comply-with-employment-law-not-public-opinion/

"Neither Jackson nor Olding are required to interact with women as part of their dutied of employment'

Wonder what Dr. Ruth would think of that!

An article written by someone who didn't give it much thought, obviously.

06-04-2018 02:53PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Made up bluffery?

So, here is a better article, also by a lawyer and specifically about this case:

http://www.aocsolicitors.ie/irfu-ulster-rugby-must-comply-with-employment-law-not-public-opinion/

That's not a better article simply because it agrees with you. It also isn't 'specifically about this case', because the only information it has in it are standard HR procedures for conducting safe disciplinary procedures.

You do understand the difference between "good" and "it agrees with me" right?

MJohnston · 06-04-2018 02:56PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

"Neither Jackson nor Olding are required to interact with women as part of their dutied of employment'

Wonder what Dr. Ruth would think of that!

An article written by someone who didn't give it much thought, obviously.

Nevermind the fact that a rugby players "duties of employment" very clearly include public interaction and publicity stuff.

Also, are either Olding or Jackson actually contracted to the IRFU at all?

MJohnston · 06-04-2018 02:58PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Made up bluffery?

So, here is a better article, also by a lawyer and specifically about this case:

http://www.aocsolicitors.ie/irfu-ulster-rugby-must-comply-with-employment-law-not-public-opinion/

As others have pointed out, "better" article is not a solid claim, but even if it was, it still doesn't provide anything that justifies your complete certainty that only the messages are under consideration.

06-04-2018 03:00PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

"Neither Jackson nor Olding are required to interact with women as part of their dutied of employment'

Wonder what Dr. Ruth would think of that!

An article written by someone who didn't give it much thought, obviously.

I took this to mean their job on the pitch. They only play against other men in a physical, competitive fashion. I didn't take this to mean there are no women involved with Ulster rugby.

Deleted User wrote: »

That's not a better article simply because it agrees with you. It also isn't 'specifically about this case', because the only information it has in it are standard HR procedures for conducting safe disciplinary procedures.

You do understand the difference between "good" and "it agrees with me" right?

Well firstly the author has been chambers recognised for employment law 4 or 5 times over the last few years but leaving that aside, the fact that it is specifically about this set of events and not about a completely different set of events in MJohnsons article renders it more relevant at the least and overall better at best. I'll leave the distinction to you but I know which one offers more constructive takeaways.

Sure what do I know though right!

irishbucsfan · 06-04-2018 03:04PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I took this to mean their job on the pitch. They only play against other men in a physical, competitive fashion. I didn't take this to mean there are no women involved with Ulster rugby.

Well firstly the author has been chambers recognised for employment law 4 or 5 times over the last few years but leaving that aside, the fact that it is specifically about this set of events and not about a completely different set of events in MJohnsons article renders it more relevant at the least and overall better at best. I'll leave the distinction to you but I know which one offers more constructive takeaways.

Sure what do I know though right!

Do you really think you could try and attempt to argue that a rugby players duties of employment start and end on the field?!

Anyway, Joy Neville is just one of potentially many female officials these lads will encounter there in future. You would get nowhere with that argument.

MJohnston · 06-04-2018 03:05PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I took this to mean their job on the pitch. They only play against other men in a physical, competitive fashion. I didn't take this to mean there are no women involved with Ulster rugby.

Even that is completely wrong though - Ulster vs Southern Kings earlier this year, referee was one Joy Neville (and she'll be the first of many). I have no doubt there are female medics and pitch doctors too.

Well firstly the author has been chambers recognised for employment law 4 or 5 times over the last few years but leaving that aside, the fact that it is specifically about this set of events and not about a completely different set of events in MJohnsons article renders it more relevant at the least and overall better at best. I'll leave the distinction to you but I know which one offers more constructive takeaways.

I posted my article not to offer unassailable judgement on legal matters, but to provide a counterpoint to your absolute certainty that there was no way Ulster/IRFU could do anything about stuff that was 'dismissed' by the trial.

errlloyd · 06-04-2018 03:06PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Well firstly the author has been chambers recognised for employment law 4 or 5 times over the last few years but leaving that aside, the fact that it is specifically about this set of events and not about a completely different set of events in MJohnsons article renders it more relevant at the least and overall better at best. I'll leave the distinction to you but I know which one offers more constructive takeaways.

Sure what do I know though right!

To be fair to Venjur, she is a female employment law solicitor, who is the principle in an all woman firm. And has clearly been involved in employment law cases regarding constructive dismissal due to sexual assault. As far as sources go, it's pretty good.

All that said, I still think her assertions are all sort of reductionist. As others have said, the hilarious idea that they don't have to deal with women, therefore their actions do not effect their job are sort of laughable. If you can find a lawyer to take a case that the world is round, I can find a lawyer who will happily take my money to argue it isn't.

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

Comments