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…121122124126127…336

Comments

  • #3692
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,728 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    If they are being sacked for the messages than Gilroy is very lucky, his message was worse.

    In reality they're being sacked for being accused of rape, which seems crazy to me, but that's the world we seem to live in today.


  • #3693
    Felix Plain Rent
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Felix Plain Rent


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    The IRFU obviously cannot ignore perception, so it'd be a bit of a waste of time to ignore it when discussing their decisions.
    I'm not the IRFU, and I'm not talking about perception. I am talking about reality. I thought I made that clear?
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    We can't control perception, however we can control our own actions and they will directly shape perception. And to the extent which we can control perception through those means, we are responsible for it. The IRFU are taking steps in exactly that direction now.
    This has almost nothing to do with anything I've said, but sure


  • #3694
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Yes. I am fully aware, most of us have these types of clauses. I think they are fair and fine.

    However, my issue is with whether or not the criteria for bringing the company into disrepute can be met as 'simply' as the previous poster suggested. Do you think that the situation that the previous poster put forward 'meet the criteria' for bringing the company name into disrepute?

    It's not just about bringing the company into disrepute in this instance. They have clauses that protect against them bringing themselves into disrepute, as most athletes do. So while it's far more difficult to prove reputational damage to the company (as their actions have to be tied directly to that reputational damage), it's extremely easy on the back of BoI's statement, or any other correspondance with other sponsors, to prove reputational damage to the players.


  • #3695
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,728 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    It's not just about bringing the company into disrepute in this instance. They have clauses that protect against them bringing themselves into disrepute, as most athletes do. So while it's far more difficult to prove reputational damage to the company (as their actions have to be tied directly to that reputational damage), it's extremely easy on the back of BoI's statement, or any other correspondance with other sponsors, to prove reputational damage to the players.
    At what point do you bring yourself into disrepute?

    When you send text messages that you wouldn't want your granny to see or when someone makes those text messages public?


  • #3696
    durthacht
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 798 ✭✭✭durthacht


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Please lay out a case to be made for Jackson's sacking based upon his conduct that night (provable or otherwise) and subsequently.

    I don't believe it is anywhere near as trivial as you are making it out to be.

    I'm not clear what you think I'm trivialising Emmet? :confused:


  • Advertisement
  • #3697
    Felix Plain Rent
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Felix Plain Rent


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    I honestly don't know. I certainly haven't received any communications that I can remember that would have raised my eyebrows. And I communicate with people of all age groups regularly.

    I would suggest that it is not normal for everyone to be open and honest in every single facet of conversation in their lives. I would suggest that it would be incredibly naive of anyone to take any private messages that anyone sent to another person/group as an indication of their character.

    jm08 suggested that PJ's 10 word text message, and the fact that the group around him were discussing the events of the night in such a manner is enough to infer enough about him so as to sack him.

    I think that is not only wrong, but dangerously wrong.


  • #3698
    foxyladyxx
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 857 ✭✭✭foxyladyxx


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    I've looked it up and it's absolutely not trending according to any tools I've used. It's been tweeted less than 10 times according to them.

    People making up things like this just causes this continual cycle of outrage. I never understand why they do it.

    Not showing as trending for me either


  • #3699
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I'm not the IRFU, and I'm not talking about perception. I am talking about reality. I thought I made that clear?

    This has almost nothing to do with anything I've said, but sure

    But you're not actually talking about reality if you're ignoring context, which exists in reality.


  • #3700
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,405 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I would suggest that it is not normal for everyone to be open and honest in every single facet of conversation in their lives. I would suggest that it would be incredibly naive of anyone to take any private messages that anyone sent to another person/group as an indication of their character.

    jm08 suggested that PJ's 10 word text message, and the fact that the group around him were discussing the events of the night in such a manner is enough to infer enough about him so as to sack him.

    I think that is not only wrong, but dangerously wrong.
    So this is only in the context of jm08's post?


  • #3701
    Felix Plain Rent
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Felix Plain Rent


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    But you're not actually talking about reality if you're ignoring context, which exists in reality.

    I am actually.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106723600&postcount=3601
    I asked what the culture that needed to be stamped out was.


  • Advertisement
  • #3702
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    awec wrote: »
    At what point do you bring yourself into disrepute?

    When you send text messages that you wouldn't want your granny to see or when someone makes those text messages public?

    At the point you damage your reputation. Doesn't actually matter what you've specifically done to do that damage, your employer only needs to reasonably conclude that it has been damaged, not what damaged it.


  • #3703
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,728 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    At the point you damage your reputation. Doesn't actually matter what you've specifically done to do that damage, your employer only needs to reasonably conclude that it has been damaged, not what damaged it.
    Doesn't really answer my question.

    At what point do you damage your reputation? When you commit the act or when people find out?


  • #3704
    Felix Plain Rent
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Felix Plain Rent


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    So this is only in the context of jm08's post?

    I am trying not to post something sarcastic here, but I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to say to this?

    You replied to a reply I made to jm08's post, and then engaged in a discussion that followed directly from it.

    Of course this is about jm08's post. :confused:


  • #3705
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I am actually.
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=106723600&postcount=3601
    I asked what the culture that needed to be stamped out was.

    Apologies, you ignored the examples of severely damaging rugby culture, so I thought you were talking about their dismissal but I'm realising now I got mixed up between conversations.

    The culture that needs to be stamped out is exactly the culture the complainant referred to in her messages. She didn't invent that out of thin air, it exists. Not so much as I've seen it elsewhere, but that shouldn't stop us having at least a plan to address it.


  • #3706
    Felix Plain Rent
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Felix Plain Rent


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Apologies, you ignored the examples of severely damaging rugby culture, so I thought you were talking about their dismissal but I'm realising now I got mixed up between conversations.

    The culture that needs to be stamped out is exactly the culture the complainant referred to in her messages. She didn't invent that out of thin air, it exists. Not so much as I've seen it elsewhere, but that shouldn't stop us having at least a plan to address it.

    Please explain the culture.


  • #3707
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,405 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I am trying not to post something sarcastic here, but I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to say to this?

    You replied to a reply I made to jm08's post, and then engaged in a discussion that followed directly from it.

    Of course this is about jm08's post. :confused:
    Sorry. Too many posts under the bridge to keep track. :o


  • #3708
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    awec wrote: »
    Doesn't really answer my question.

    At what point do you damage your reputation? When you commit the act or when people find out?

    It's not the act of damaging your reputation that is important, it's the damage that is done. It's not the cause that will get you sacked, it's the symptom.


  • #3709
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 20,606 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    At the point you damage your reputation. Doesn't actually matter what you've specifically done to do that damage, your employer only needs to reasonably conclude that it has been damaged, not what damaged it.

    The IRFU have to prove nothing, they can sack whoever they want, they just can't do it without potential consequences.

    As for reputational damage (or any type of damage or negligence) it's not just enough to prove that the damage happened. It has to be proved that the damage happened because of the actions of the person.

    You would say in this instance that these actions happened in private. For them to cause damage they needed to be made public. The act of making them public was not done by Jackson or Olding.

    https://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/claire-byrne-live-extras-30003215/10862310/

    Irish employment law expert here giving more detail. It's not clear cut, Jackson definitely has cause for action but I suspect he has been paid for his silence and to further prostrate himself in front of the court of public opinion.
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    It's not the act of damaging your reputation that is important, it's the damage that is done. It's not the cause that will get you sacked, it's the symptom.

    Cause in a legal sense absolutely does matter if the IRFU had to defend their actions to the EAT.


  • #3710
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Please explain the culture.

    I explained both above. If you want more examples I can try to track down that reddit post and the responses to it. Or if you look at that reply to the tweets, you'll see there are many people who said they've seen it and gave up rugby because of it (which is what the unions will be most interested in).

    As for the culture of disrespect and lack of awareness towards the other sex by successful young athletes, I think that's been fairly well exemplified by the court case, couldn't think of a better example myself. It's happened in both male and female sports across the world, given participation in sport is heavily weighted towards men in this country it often feels like a male issue here, we can do more to address it.


  • #3711
    The Black Stags
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 177 ✭✭The Black Stags


    joseywhales wrote: »
    The Black Stags wrote: »
    joseywhales wrote: »
    sydthebeat wrote: »
    joseywhales wrote: »
    Man he is getting serious benefit here, we'll take his word for it, he should not persye a medical career if he can't tell fresh from mentrual blood.

    So these parties you leave, they won't even walk you to the door when one of the guests semen is on your pants?

    ???

    She was not only walked to the door, but she was accompanied home in a taxi.

    What are you on about?

    Well I was referring to venjur not being walked to the door of his parties but anyway.

    Why didn't paddy Jackson, who had her blood from and internal laceration(caused by blunt force trauma) on his duvet walk her to the door given it was his house? Why didn't he call her to find out if she was ok?

    If it was your sister or female friend would you prefer if she was involved in the Munster threesome or the Ulster threesome?

    The 'laceration' you've been basing a lot of your comments on was disputed by a doctor; stop bringing it up as fact when it was disputed by someone with much more medical experience than you.

    Listen 'lad'

    What are you talking about Dr Phillip lavery literally said there was a 1cm laceration caused by blunt force trauma.

    He did not conclude that it was caused by non consenual sex and neither did I.
    How disrespectful to call me 'lad'. How dare you.
    There was more than one doctor at the trial, perhaps the fact she was female meant you ignored her opinion.


  • Advertisement
  • #3712
    Felix Plain Rent
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Felix Plain Rent


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    I explained both above. If you want more examples I can try to track down that reddit post and the responses to it. Or if you look at that reply to the tweets, you'll see there are many people who said they've seen it and gave up rugby because of it (which is what the unions will be most interested in).
    1,4,6,9.

    Examples of integers. Or rounded floats. Could be positive only. Or could be Square roots. Probably need another few thousand examples before we can discount any of these.

    Giving examples of something does not explain it. Especially if it is something that is more complicated than something a 2 year old can comprehend.
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    As for the culture of disrespect and lack of awareness towards the other sex by successful young athletes, I think that's been fairly well exemplified by the court case, couldn't think of a better example myself. It's happened in both male and female sports across the world, given participation in sport is heavily weighted towards men in this country it often feels like a male issue here, we can do more to address it.

    Please explain
    1 - This culture
    2 - How Ulster Rugby / IRFU promote it

    edit: actually, just 1 is fine


  • #3713
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The IRFU have to prove nothing, they can sack whoever they want, they just can't do it without potential consequences.

    As for reputational damage (or any type of damage or negligence) it's not just enough to prove that the damage happened. It has to be proved that the damage happened because of the actions of the person.

    You would say in this instance that these actions happened in private. For them to cause damage they needed to be made public. The act of making them public was not done by Jackson or Olding.

    https://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/claire-byrne-live-extras-30003215/10862310/

    Irish employment law expert here giving more detail. It's not clear cut, Jackson definitely has cause for action but I suspect he has been paid for his silence and to further prostrate himself in front of the court of public opinion.



    Cause in a legal sense absolutely does matter if the IRFU had to defend their actions to the EAT.

    UK Employment law experts would disagree with you. And you know that because you've seen the article, no point sharing it again. Pretty sure they weren't employed in Ireland.


  • #3714
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    1,4,6,9.

    Examples of integers. Or rounded floats. Could be positive only. Or could be Square roots. Probably need another few thousand examples before we can discount any of these.

    Giving examples of something does not explain it. Especially if it is something that is more complicated than something a 2 year old can comprehend.


    Please explain
    1 - This culture
    2 - How Ulster Rugby / IRFU promote it

    edit: actually, just 1 is fine

    That would take far more time than I have any interest in giving it.

    Obviously you know that.


  • #3715
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 20,606 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    UK Employment law experts would disagree with you. And you know that because you've seen the article, no point sharing it again. Pretty sure they weren't employed in Ireland.

    They don't 'disagree' with me. Much like the laws of the game, there are certain interpretations in certain circumstances that could be interpreted to enable a dismissal. The circumstances are not identical (or even similar), hence the result could deviate substantially.

    In my opinion and in the expert opinion of someone commenting specifically on the case, it's not clear cut.


  • #3716
    ArielAtom
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,592 ✭✭✭ArielAtom


    Feel sorry for the lads. Found not guilty in a court of law by a jury of their own peers only to be tried by social media. I am of the opinion that they behaved like absolute scumbags in their actions but rape was not proven. If it’s about reputations that the IRFU are concerned with then why was three no action against two other internationals who were involved in their own spitroast in a Dublin hotel and it was made public although
    It was consentiual. Anyway France or if I was them head down under if they want to continue playing.


  • #3717
    Felix Plain Rent
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Felix Plain Rent


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    That would take far more time than I have any interest in giving it.

    Obviously you know that.

    Nope, in fact I have a memory of you spending months defending your opinions.

    I want to understand this culture that the original poster suggested needs to be stamped out of rugby. That is literally why I asked them.


  • #3718
    Asus X540L
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,510 ✭✭✭Asus X540L


    Remember Conor Murray and Zebo actually recorded the same act and got a slap on the wrist.

    Fringe players get axed


  • #3719
    Felix Plain Rent
    Posts: 24,798 ✭✭✭✭ Felix Plain Rent


    Asus X540L wrote: »
    Remember Conor Murray and Zebo actually recorded the same act and got a slap on the wrist.

    Fringe players get axed

    This is not in any way a fair comparison.


  • #3720
    launish116
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,538 ✭✭✭launish116


    Looking forward to Ulster’s PR bandwagon this week....big signing to gloss over this?

    Sad thing is this has taken away from a great game last night, albeit Ulster couldn’t finish multiple try opportunities.


  • Advertisement
  • #3721
    Teferi
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,320 ✭✭✭Teferi


    Deleted User wrote: »
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    That would take far more time than I have any interest in giving it.

    Obviously you know that.

    Nope, in fact I have a memory of you spending months defending your opinions.

    On behalf of the rest of the forum: please not again


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement