Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding are to leave Ulster

First topic message reminder :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43739023


There are few places I can post how I feel on such a touchy subject. Here will have to do.

Confession: I have said things in Whatsapp messages which would ruin my career if made public. Context is irrelevant when people quote in isolation. If you said it, you face the wrath.

Anyone else?

Who can say 100% that their whatsapp/text messages from the beginning of phone technology would not screw you over if publicised?


As a general rule I believe the best way to deal with wrong doing is to teach/educate/admonish.
Not just to say you will, but to have those at the centre testify publicly to that process of rehabilitation.
The first step of course is a real unscripted sincere apology that people can view and make judgement on. Scripted read outs do not work.

For me, I'd much rather my son looked up to Jackson and in 5/6 years time somehow hears Jackson talk about his shame and regret.
Something like that educates children much more than banishing these guys.

So what has happened instead?

Rather than accepting the kinder yet more challenging option of working with the guys and taking them on a journey, they are being exiled effectively.

What kind of love does that? Would you exile a family member, a good friend, or would you strive to see them change their life around?

There is zero love for these young guys who came through the academy and put their everything into the club. They are just assets to the club, and assets that have gone bad.

They might have had a slight tinge of commitment, and possibly were considering resisting the social media swell, but sadly money talks, and the sponsor money is by far the most important thing to this corporate business. And it doesn't matter that the sponsor operating the strings like a puppeteer has been found wanting moth ethically and professionally in the past itself.

What irks me most is that the swell against the club and IRFU to sack them is done so under the flimsy veneer of the boys being 'role models', when the absolute truth is that this is and always was a crusade to deal out punishment upon these two guys irrespective of the courts decision.

The #ibelieveher hastag existed before evidence was even heard and carrys on even after verdict. I have seen evidence twisted and misrepresented and folks quoting headlines completely wrong.

It's sickening. There was a mission to destroy these guys lives from the start and nothing would stop them.


Last but not least - I call upon the IRFU to explain exactly what their reasoning is for their departure. The two guys are on 100% equal standing as Gilroy in terms of demeaning, derogatory language in messages.
So if Gilroy is not also away, then the decision must be based on something else.
It can't be the case, because the verdict lawfully/legally settles that.
So what is it?

Will the IRFU try to avoid giving their position and their reasoning?


Lastly, please I don't want to be misrepresented. I think these young lads are idiots. I think their language is vile. On a personal morality level, I'm not a fan of their (what I would call) promiscuity or high levels of alcohol.
But I do believe wholeheartedly in second chances, in rehabilitation, in changed lives, in testimony.
And I believe in not imprisoning people without full proof evidence.

the-goon wrote:

catchweight wrote:

the-goon wrote:

catchweight wrote:I dont think anyone is saying its isolated to Ulster. But the two players were brought to trial on a very serious charge, the messages were revealed and in the process they damaged themselves and the club they represented. I really think this was the only option and I dont think the players can have many complaints. They brought the the cub into dsirepute, damaged its brand and threatened its sponsorship. They had to go for their own sake and for the club. Saying Im sure it happens at other clubs doesnt really absolve them or change anything. I think the precedent set that if you are brought to trial on a charge like that and those kind of messages become public then you will have your contract terminated is reasonable.

People asking why isnt Gilroy sacked - because he wasnt accused of sexual assault clearly is the reason. The two players were found legally not guilty in the eyes of the the law but for many out there their actions and behavior were unacceptable and life isnt as clear cut as being found not guilty of a crime that is notoriously difficult to prove will result in widespread re-acceptance. Being accused of r*** and then being found sharing messages celebrating "spit roasting" a distressed complainant of sexual assault will be unforgivable for many irrespective of the outcome of the case. What happened to the two players could happen to a whole lot more players I am quite sure but that doesnt absolve the them of having to deal with the consequences. I would be surprised if anyone expected to keep their job after a trial like that.

OK, using your logic.

I accuse you of r***. You should be fired from your job. Guilt or innocence doesn't matter, merely the accusation.

This isnt my logic nor anything to do with what I said.

I would expect to be fired from my job if I was charged with r*** and the public were made aware I was bragging about spit roasting the complainant.

Even if you didn't r*** her, and she just falsely accused you after the fact? You would be ok with being fired? Well fair enough.

So you have never talked about your sexual encounters to your friends via private message ever in your life?  Fair enough.

I'm glad you have never said anything derogatory about women in your life ever, as if you have you'd be a massive hypocrite. Good man  

I dont know if the players were falsely accused. All I know is that it went to court and the jury decided that there was not sufficient evidence for them to determine that the complainant was raped beyond reasonable doubt. You have obviously decided that the complainant was falsely accusing the players. That wasnt necessarily the findings of the court.That may the case of course, they also may have thought there was a possibility the complainant was truthful but that there was enough doubt to warrant an acquittal. They need to be sure she was raped beyond reasonable doubt. Its not all black and white. Only those involved really know what happened. I respect that due process was carried out and the decision of the jury. That doesnt equate to harbouring no doubts as to what occured. Thats the just the nature of r*** and the law that governs it.

It doesnt really matter what messages I have or havent sent. What matters is that the players in question sent those messages and they became public knowledge. This in conjuction with the serious nature of the crime they were accused with and the fall out from this made their position untenable with Ulster. So what if others have done the same and got away with it? Its not really a justification and certainly a justification Ulster Rugby could be seen to make and expect not have major damage to its reputation and brand.

I guess you dont think the nature of the messages or the ugliness of the event that occurred was much to be fussed about. Nothing more than harmless fun.

If I took 7 weeks off to defend myself at trial from r*** accusations then I wouldn't expect to wall back into my job, assuming the claims weren't completely fabricated.

The prosecution obviously felt that they had enough to go to trial. No they weren't found guilty, but that doesn't completely absolve them of their part in the incident.

I think the original post has some merit as an idea. But I also don't feel the players are too hard done by. Yes, the club is washing their hands of them but the players also get a chance to put the whole event behind them. If they sign 3 year contracts abroad they can just focus on their rugby and possibly come back after.

The discussion on morality is ridiculous considering the decision to sack the players was purely monetary. The IRFU didn't care about morality when Zebo and Murray were having sex two on one, and they only came down hard on Brennan when he threatened the very source of their revenue. They haven't sacked Gilroy, so the conclusion is that they aren't too bothered about his derogatory comments when presumably the payoff would outweigh the possible loss. The IRFU are falling over themselves to keep the sponsors happy so that must be the path of least cost.

I had two tickets for the Glasgow game but no longer and will think carefully before getting any more.

I'm not saying she falsely accused them. However, you seem to think that an accusation is sufficient for your employer to sack you. We will never know if it was a false accusation, as no one bar those 3 people knew exactly what happened in that room.

But, in a scenario where there is a false accusation, and some messages emerge of some distasteful language in a PRIVATE conversation you think it is grounds for dismissal. In fact, your position is even less tenable as Paddy Jackson at least didn't say anything that bad, so why should be fired? So what was he fired for? Not raping someone in a 3some? And just being in a chat where some poor language was used?

The comments are distasteful, but context matters. It was a private conversation, and that should be taken into consideration. Ultimately the messages reflect badly on the SO, PJ (but shouldn't as he didn't participate) and CG as individuals, and they were not representing their club at the time (unlike Basteraud). I believe what you do on your time shouldn't be the business of your employer, unless stated in your contract.

Oh, and it does matter what messages you have and haven't sent. You are passing a moral judgement on those messages, if you have done something similar, that makes you a hypocrite.

Pot Hale wrote:

the-goon wrote:

So you have never talked about your sexual encounters to your friends via private message ever in your life?  Fair enough.  

Is this a thing?  You sound surprised that he hasn’t.  

People talking to their friends about their sexlife, yes I think that happens.

the-goon wrote:I'm not saying she falsely accused them. However, you seem to think that an accusation is sufficient for your employer to sack you. We will never know if it was a false accusation, as no one bar those 3 people knew exactly what happened in that room.

But, in a scenario where there is a false accusation, and some messages emerge of some distasteful language in a PRIVATE conversation you think it is grounds for dismissal. In fact, your position is even less tenable as Paddy Jackson at least didn't say anything that bad, so why should be fired? So what was he fired for? Not raping someone in a 3some? And just being in a chat where some poor language was used?

The comments are distasteful, but context matters. It was a private conversation, and that should be taken into consideration. Ultimately the messages reflect badly on the SO, PJ (but shouldn't as he didn't participate) and CG as individuals, and they were not representing their club at the time (unlike Basteraud). I believe what you do on your time shouldn't be the business of your employer, unless stated in your contract.

Oh, and it does matter what messages you have and haven't sent. You are passing a moral judgement on those messages, if you have done something similar, that makes you a hypocrite.

I never suggested an accusation alone should result in a sacking. An accusation brought to trial which revealed the kind of conduct the players engaged in to the public I think is certainly a sackable offence for any company that wants to be seen to promote good ethics, has a code of conduct, relies on brand for sponsorship etc.

Yes context matters - these men were accused of r***. The woman the comments were made about alleged this was a sexual assault they were boasting about. Once the comments went public, the fact that they were not meant to be public ship has sailed. Its out there and it put the club in a position where they had to respond to it. Jackson was involved in the conversation by the way. Something along the lines of "there was a a lot of spit roasting going on". I would expect to fired from my job if the same thing happened to me. And I wouldnt expect to be getting any kind of pay off either. If that kind of stuff was revealed and I was on trial for r*** and my employers were aware of it then I really dont think I could have too many grounds for complaint either.

You seem to equating people speaking about sex life etc to the kind of language and attitudes shown in the conversation. It all depends really doesnt it. Saying I got with Karen at the office party or I wouldnt mind a go off the new girl in accounts isnt really on the level of labelling women sluts and bragging about spit roasting a teenage girl who left the house in a huge state of distress. I dont think this is normal behaviour. You dont need to be some kind of saint to find that kind of stuff distasteful.

"Spit roasting" is the of the sex act that was alleged to have happened, what is wrong with saying that? The 19 year old WOMAN as far as the courts could determine consented to this. So again, what did PJ do wrong?

We know:
- According to the trial, did not r*** her
-Mentioned the sex act that was alleged to have happened to his friends? If there is a cleaner version of the act he should have used, please let me know.
- Was accused of r***.



So in conclusion, he was fired because he was accused of r***. You agree with these standards. I accuse you of r***, you should be fired.

OR

"I never suggested an accusation alone should result in a sacking. An accusation brought to trial which revealed the kind of conduct the players engaged in to the public I think is certainly a sackable offence for any company that wants to be seen to promote good ethics, has a code of conduct, relies on brand for sponsorship etc. "

So the group sex is the issue? We should fire people based upon their actions with consenting (as far as the courts can determine, you know innocent until proven guilty) adults in the privacy of their bedrooms?

Again, you do not know the courts determined she consented. They may have found there was not substantial enough evidence to make it certain she did not consent. We dont know what the court thought on every aspect of the trial other than they found to acquit the men of the charges in the end.

Its clear that you dont really have a problem with the contents or context of the messages made public so that being its obviously nothing I can say will make you see diffirent.

I think the contents of conversations in the context of players accused of r*** and sexual assault is pretty serious, the events that took place that night were ugly and can fully understand how it would result in termination of employment in light of the damage it caused to Ulster Rugby, not to mention the character of the accused. In fact I cant really see how Ulster Rugby could do anything different in light of the huge pressure from the public and sponsors.

The correct decision for all involved if they want to draw a line under things and move on in my opinion.

Its clear you disagree so lets leave it there.

The Great Aukster wrote:The discussion on morality is ridiculous considering the decision to sack the players was purely monetary. The IRFU didn't care about morality when Zebo and Murray were having sex two on one, and they only came down hard on Brennan when he threatened the very source of their revenue. They haven't sacked Gilroy, so the conclusion is that they aren't too bothered about his derogatory comments when presumably the payoff would outweigh the possible loss. The IRFU are falling over themselves to keep the sponsors happy so that must be the path of least cost.

I had two tickets for the Glasgow game but no longer and will think carefully before getting any more.

This (above) is concisely it. They were not binned for legal or moral reasons but for financial ones. It leaves not only Jackson and Olding morally flawed but Ulster and the IRFU morally bankrupt. The usual disgusting, morally free, parasitic lawyers tortured that poor lass in court. There are no winners in this case and justice let the victim down not least in her treatment at court.

Anyway Aukster hope to see you Saturday at Ravenhill if you reconsider. Quite a few coming across the water for this one even although not much in it for us. Lets get back to rugby esp. for you guys.

The Great Aukster wrote:The discussion on morality is ridiculous considering the decision to sack the players was purely monetary. The IRFU didn't care about morality when Zebo and Murray were having sex two on one, and they only came down hard on Brennan when he threatened the very source of their revenue. They haven't sacked Gilroy, so the conclusion is that they aren't too bothered about his derogatory comments when presumably the payoff would outweigh the possible loss. The IRFU are falling over themselves to keep the sponsors happy so that must be the path of least cost.

I had two tickets for the Glasgow game but no longer and will think carefully before getting any more.

Its not a question of morality. Its a question of Misogyny.

definition wrote:
Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification.

A quote from Eddie O'Sullivan in his column in London Times today:

eddie o'sullivan wrote:
They had to go. As soon as the crassness and cruelty of those WhatsApp messages entered the public arena, there was no alternative action for the IRFU and Ulster Rugby to make.

The idea, forwarded by Willie John McBride, that it was time “these young men got back doing what they do best”, was so divorced from reality that it was beyond embarrassing. This is an issue that has rocked Irish society to its core. It is about rugby and it is about something beyond rugby.

The game is made up of people, the people who run clubs, those who pay through the turnstiles to support the various national, provincial and club teams throughout Ireland and the male and female players who represent every side from school up to international level. And the vast majority of people I have spoken to over the past three months are absolutely appalled by the content of Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding’s messages to a WhatsApp group.

The boasts contained in the WhatsApp messages aren’t just unsavoury, they are vile and have had the effect of making so many people around the country turn to rugby people and ask “is this common practice in your game”?

The answer is it’s not. Now I’m not naive enough to think that there have not been similar conversations heard in differing dressing rooms over the past three months, and nor am I naive enough to think this is problem confined to rugby. This macho banter inevitably occurs in soccer and GAA too. It is prevalent, in certain circles, throughout society and throughout the world.

While it maybe a monetary decision, that decision has come from society. You can be sure that BoI & Kingspan were not just taking this decision because of social media pressure. They will have done their own research on it. More reliable would be the Amarch Research for RTE where 1000 people in ROI were contacted by telephone and asked whether they thought either of the 2 lads should play for Ireland again. It was 2:1 that they should not.

From what is said in newspapers, it seems that Olding and Jackson's contracts were bought out and they are released to move on. I don't know how anyone can defend them at this stage bearing in mind the trouble they have caused.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/sport-and-society-must-learn-from-paddy-jackson-and-stuart-olding-rjbxw0hqk

catchweight wrote:Again, you do not know the courts determined she consented. They may have found there was not substantial enough evidence to make it certain she did not consent. We dont know what the court thought on every aspect of the trial other than they found to acquit the men of the charges in the end.

Its clear that you dont really have a problem with the contents or context of the messages made public so that being its obviously nothing I can say will make you see diffirent.

I think the contents of conversations in the context of players accused of r*** and sexual assault is pretty serious, the events that took place that night were ugly and can fully understand how it would result in termination of employment in light of the damage it caused to Ulster Rugby, not to mention the character of the accused. In fact I cant really see how Ulster Rugby could do anything different in light of the huge pressure from the public and sponsors.

The correct decision for all involved if they want to draw a line under things and move on in my opinion.

Its clear you disagree so lets leave it there.

Yeah, fine. What's the point in trying to engage with someone that just talks past your arguments because they can't address them. Waste of time.

I will address you one last time, as I enjoy debunking them.

1. The courts are in the best position to determine what happened that night, if it wasn't r***, one has to reasonably assume that it there was consent, it's one or the other. I'm just using their interpretation, it's by definition better than yours, or anyone else. This means an employer, must also use it.
2. How were the events ugly? No crime was commited. Was it because it was group sex? Or an accusation, and a potentially false one at that?
3. The accused chose to do what she did, if the boys need to live with the consequences of their actions, so should she. Don't want to be labeled a promiscuous, don't have sex with 2 men at the same time you met only hours ago. She also referred to women as sluts as well in some texts. I assume you don't want her fired as well. God forbid you have no principles.
4. Submitting to the twitter mob and the sponsors is a practical, not a principled argument. Does that mean if there was no backlash, you would be ok with them staying? No principles.

I don't think the accused is a victim. I don't think women in general are victims due to the language in the texts. They are adults, and not delicate flowers, and are perfectly capable of getting on with their lives should they choose to.
As for the "what message would that send to young boys" argument, stop projecting, men aren't that impressionable or stupid. Men derive their values from multiple sources, and they are closer to home.

Sin é wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Really, what part of the conversation said that?

That is the message given out in both what they said and their actions.

That's not what I asked, what part of the conversation did it

Well, CG asking if they had f**ed any s**ts. That suggests that this is a normal activity of this particular group for starters.
Then they start talking about spit roasting a woman as if she was a pig!

It would be interesting to know if close friends like Henderson are members of this particular group, or any other young team mates from Ulster Rugby like McCloskey/Luke Marshall - their own age group who didn't contribute to the conversation?

So because Gilroy said something Olding and Jackson should be sacked?

Pretty sure they said there was a lot of spit, also spitroasting is a sexual term so you can't use the relevant terms to describe an act?

So basically you've got nothing on what they said and just stretch to justify the sacking

To be fair to the lass.in question. She didn't go along with it and reported them for r***.

No 7&1/2 wrote:To be fair to the lass.in question. She didn't go along with it and reported them for r***.

Witnesses say otherwise

And?

definition wrote:

Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, , belittling of women, patriarchy, male privilege, violence against women, and sexual objectification.

That is a rubbish definition. It should be "hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls because they are women or girls

Hating a woman because she a terrible person is not Misogyny.

patriarchy, male privilege- these things don't exist

violence against women, and sexual objectification.- not just a male thing.

And? Seriously?

Yeah just continue to basically call them rapists

No 7&1/2 wrote:To be fair to the lass.in question. She didn't go along with it and reported them for r***.

Prove this statement. A trial suggests you are wrong.

It was in response to the definitive from goon marty. As we have all agreed the process isn't fool proof. I'm just stating the girl herself didn't think it was consensual.

It is proven. She did report it goon.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And?

So basically your comment is opinion rather than fact as witnesses and a jury concluded that she did go along with it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It is proven. She did report it goon.

It wasn't proven that she didn't go along with it which was your key point which you are putting forward as a factual statement which it is not.

No they didn't guns. Or potentially didn't. They basically said it couldnt be proved.

I acknowledge that point. Guns. Tbf to the lass she didn't think it was consensual and reported them.for r***.

Sin é wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The discussion on morality is ridiculous considering the decision to sack the players was purely monetary. The IRFU didn't care about morality when Zebo and Murray were having sex two on one, and they only came down hard on Brennan when he threatened the very source of their revenue. They haven't sacked Gilroy, so the conclusion is that they aren't too bothered about his derogatory comments when presumably the payoff would outweigh the possible loss. The IRFU are falling over themselves to keep the sponsors happy so that must be the path of least cost.

I had two tickets for the Glasgow game but no longer and will think carefully before getting any more.

Its not a question of morality. Its a question of Misogyny.

definition wrote:
Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification.

A quote from Eddie O'Sullivan in his column in London Times today:

eddie o'sullivan wrote:
They had to go. As soon as the crassness and cruelty of those WhatsApp messages entered the public arena, there was no alternative action for the IRFU and Ulster Rugby to make.

The idea, forwarded by Willie John McBride, that it was time “these young men got back doing what they do best”, was so divorced from reality that it was beyond embarrassing. This is an issue that has rocked Irish society to its core. It is about rugby and it is about something beyond rugby.

The game is made up of people, the people who run clubs, those who pay through the turnstiles to support the various national, provincial and club teams throughout Ireland and the male and female players who represent every side from school up to international level. And the vast majority of people I have spoken to over the past three months are absolutely appalled by the content of Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding’s messages to a WhatsApp group.

The boasts contained in the WhatsApp messages aren’t just unsavoury, they are vile and have had the effect of making so many people around the country turn to rugby people and ask “is this common practice in your game”?

The answer is it’s not. Now I’m not naive enough to think that there have not been similar conversations heard in differing dressing rooms over the past three months, and nor am I naive enough to think this is problem confined to rugby. This macho banter inevitably occurs in soccer and GAA too. It is prevalent, in certain circles, throughout society and throughout the world.

While it maybe a monetary decision, that decision has come from society. You can be sure that BoI & Kingspan were not just taking this decision because of social media pressure. They will have done their own research on it. More reliable would be the Amarch Research for RTE where 1000 people in ROI were contacted by telephone and asked whether they thought either of the 2 lads should play for Ireland again. It was 2:1 that they should not.

From what is said in newspapers, it seems that Olding and Jackson's contracts were bought out and they are released to move on. I don't know how anyone can defend them at this stage bearing in mind the trouble they have caused.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/sport-and-society-must-learn-from-paddy-jackson-and-stuart-olding-rjbxw0hqk

The short answer is they haven't really done anything to merit sacking which is probably why they were paid off.

When it comes to Whatsapp, they haven't done anything another group of 20 somethings have done in a group chat. However, they are pro international rugby players in the limelight so whilst found not guilty, The trial and subsequent fall out in the media Ulster can "sack them" for breech of contract for bringing the club into disrepute and their behaviour on social media etc.
As for Jackson, I'd have him at the Ospreys tomorrow but they'll probably go to France nor super rugby to get away from it all.

I dont know how you guys have the energy to still be arguing about this

No 7&1/2 wrote:It is proven. She did report it goon.

So why did we bother with a trial? If we have proof she was raped, why aren't they in jail?

7 1/2 raped me. There, you are now a r***ist. Congrats.

Breadvan wrote:When it comes to Whatsapp, they haven't done anything another group of 20 somethings have done in a group chat. However, they are pro international rugby players in the limelight so whilst found not guilty, The trial and subsequent fall out in the media Ulster can "sack them" for breech of contract for bringing the club into disrepute and their behaviour on social media etc.
As for Jackson, I'd have him at the Ospreys tomorrow but they'll probably go to France nor super rugby to get away from it all.

I agree and if it happened down south their identities could not have been reported on, their most likely would have been.a media black out on any reporting on the case, as it it came out two international rugby players were on trial in most likely would have lead to their identifications.
Since they were found not guilty there would never have been any reports on it on the Whattsapp chats etc.

In light of this if it was down south I do not think the IRFU or Province involved would have sacked them, severely reprimanded, and warned, but not sacked because there was not the media coverage and press.

This means the decision to sack them was not based on principles, but media pressure dressed up as principles, which in my opinion is wrong, We should have confidence that the IRFU would reach the same decision on a matter of principle regardless on media pressure, and have the strength of character to stand by that decision even if there is pressure.

I think they bottled it, and it would have been different if their identities were protected.

It's is proven that she believed she was raped and reported it. Same validity as your statement goon. Hopefully they can move on and learn from their behaviour. Hopefully ulster continue to make sensible statements. Hopefully those ulster fans who feel betrayed enjoy whichever club they next support.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's is proven that she believed she was raped and reported it. Same validity as your statement goon. Hopefully they can move on and learn from their behaviour. Hopefully ulster continue to make sensible statements. Hopefully those ulster fans who feel betrayed enjoy whichever club they next support.

Isaac Boss was accused of and arrested for r*** on 2008/2009. Does that mean during his entire Leinster career he was a r***ist? I mean that woman believed she was raped strongly enough to report it.

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Really, what part of the conversation said that?

That is the message given out in both what they said and their actions.

That's not what I asked, what part of the conversation did it

Well, CG asking if they had f**ed any s**ts. That suggests that this is a normal activity of this particular group for starters.
Then they start talking about spit roasting a woman as if she was a pig!

It would be interesting to know if close friends like Henderson are members of this particular group, or any other young team mates from Ulster Rugby like McCloskey/Luke Marshall - their own age group who didn't contribute to the conversation?

So because Gilroy said something Olding and Jackson should be sacked?

Pretty sure they said there was a lot of spit, also spitroasting is a sexual term so you can't use the relevant terms to describe an act?

So basically you've got nothing on what they said and just stretch to justify the sacking

They were participating in a conversation that was degrading to women. They also dragged the reputation of the IRFU / Ulster Rugby /the sport and themselves through the mud of a nine weeks trial.

They were also rendered themselves absent from the squad for 18 months which had an effect on the performance of Ulster Rugby.

Sin é wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:The discussion on morality is ridiculous considering the decision to sack the players was purely monetary. The IRFU didn't care about morality when Zebo and Murray were having sex two on one, and they only came down hard on Brennan when he threatened the very source of their revenue. They haven't sacked Gilroy, so the conclusion is that they aren't too bothered about his derogatory comments when presumably the payoff would outweigh the possible loss. The IRFU are falling over themselves to keep the sponsors happy so that must be the path of least cost.

I had two tickets for the Glasgow game but no longer and will think carefully before getting any more.

Its not a question of morality. Its a question of Misogyny.

definition wrote:
Misogyny is the hatred of, contempt for, or prejudice against women or girls. Misogyny can be manifested in numerous ways, including social exclusion, sex discrimination, hostility, androcentrism, patriarchy, male privilege, belittling of women, violence against women, and sexual objectification.

A quote from Eddie O'Sullivan in his column in London Times today:

eddie o'sullivan wrote:
They had to go. As soon as the crassness and cruelty of those WhatsApp messages entered the public arena, there was no alternative action for the IRFU and Ulster Rugby to make.

The idea, forwarded by Willie John McBride, that it was time “these young men got back doing what they do best”, was so divorced from reality that it was beyond embarrassing. This is an issue that has rocked Irish society to its core. It is about rugby and it is about something beyond rugby.

The game is made up of people, the people who run clubs, those who pay through the turnstiles to support the various national, provincial and club teams throughout Ireland and the male and female players who represent every side from school up to international level. And the vast majority of people I have spoken to over the past three months are absolutely appalled by the content of Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding’s messages to a WhatsApp group.

The boasts contained in the WhatsApp messages aren’t just unsavoury, they are vile and have had the effect of making so many people around the country turn to rugby people and ask “is this common practice in your game”?

The answer is it’s not. Now I’m not naive enough to think that there have not been similar conversations heard in differing dressing rooms over the past three months, and nor am I naive enough to think this is problem confined to rugby. This macho banter inevitably occurs in soccer and GAA too. It is prevalent, in certain circles, throughout society and throughout the world.

While it maybe a monetary decision, that decision has come from society. You can be sure that BoI & Kingspan were not just taking this decision because of social media pressure. They will have done their own research on it. More reliable would be the Amarch Research for RTE where 1000 people in ROI were contacted by telephone and asked whether they thought either of the 2 lads should play for Ireland again. It was 2:1 that they should not.

From what is said in newspapers, it seems that Olding and Jackson's contracts were bought out and they are released to move on. I don't know how anyone can defend them at this stage bearing in mind the trouble they have caused.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/sport-and-society-must-learn-from-paddy-jackson-and-stuart-olding-rjbxw0hqk

If it was "a question of Misogyny", the IRFU would have had Gilroy first against the wall. They seem to have realised that buying him out of his contract wasn't worth it as the sponsors weren't threatening to pull funds if he stayed. It's a professional game so every euro counts but the IRFU mustn't be disingenuous and pretend this is about anything other than their bank balance. The banks in charge of that balance are struggling to restore their own public credibility by investing in sport, and it was opportunistic of them to tap into a populist opinion (in the ROI) to get kudos from current and potential customers. Money talks and in this case the sponsors have shouted the loudest.

"They had to go. As soon as the crassness and cruelty of those WhatsApp messages entered the public arena, there was no alternative action for the IRFU and Ulster Rugby to make.
The idea, forwarded by Willie John McBride, that it was time “these young men got back doing what they do best”, was so divorced from reality that it was beyond embarrassing. This is an issue that has rocked Irish society to its core. It is about rugby and it is about something beyond rugby."

Those highlighted bits made me laugh my coffee over my screen.

If you want to believe boss is a r***ist pete you're free to do so.

No 7&1/2 wrote:If you want to believe boss is a r***ist pete you're free to do so.

No I do not but I'm not taking the stance of many that if someone's accused of r*** they are a r***ist.

I'm also not taking the stance that private text messages sent by young lads are any indication of their true attitude to anything in life let alone women.

Someone on Saturday night asked me 'what if it was your daughter?' to which I answered 'I do not have a daughter so cannot comment personally. I do however have a young son and I hope that if he should ever screw up and make a major life error that he'll be given a chance to redeem himself and prove the doubters wrong'. Sadly we live in a society that would rather gloat at people sinking rather than swimming and will continue to as long as the liberal lefties are there to shame us into submission. That and the morally hypocritical banks.

Ah it's a right wing thing. Say no more.

Pete330v2 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:If you want to believe boss is a r***ist pete you're free to do so.

No I do not but I'm not taking the stance of many that if someone's accused of r*** they are a r***ist.

I'm also not taking the stance that private text messages sent by young lads are any indication of their true attitude to anything in life let alone women.

Someone on Saturday night asked me 'what if it was your daughter?' to which I answered 'I do not have a daughter so cannot comment personally. I do however have a young son and I hope that if he should ever screw up and make a major life error that he'll be given a chance to redeem himself and prove the doubters wrong'. Sadly we live in a society that would rather gloat at people sinking rather than swimming and will continue to as long as the liberal lefties are there to shame us into submission. That and the morally hypocritical banks.

I think its more a case that some people want the two rugby players to have committed a crime so that it would fuel their sense of victimhood.

I think everyone agrees that r*** is a terrible thing but its equally terrible to treat innocent people as if they were rapists and we are experiencing this with the public protestations, newspaper ads and the pressure in general to sack the two players. Its actually quite disgusting really.

No 7&1/2 wrote:It's is proven that she believed she was raped and reported it. Same validity as your statement goon. Hopefully they can move on and learn from their behaviour. Hopefully ulster continue to make sensible statements. Hopefully those ulster fans who feel betrayed enjoy whichever club they next support.

No it hasn't been proven, it is assumed that is why she reported it, and it is also quite likely that is why. She could simply be vindictive, or embarrassed by her behaviour so pulls the r*** card. We don't actually know.

You are assuming every accusation is genuine, so therefore you must assume mine is too. Ergo, you are a r***ist. It may not be proven in a court of law, but no smoke without fire eh? Someone accusing someone else of r*** would never lie....

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah it's a right wing thing. Say no more.

Ring wing = evil

Left wing = virtuous

I'm not assuming that at all goon. Some are assuming that every verdict by the courts are correct.

I don't think either of your summation are correct in regards left or right goon.

the-goon wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah it's a right wing thing. Say no more.

Ring wing = evil

Left wing = virtuous

That definitely puts those disgusting fems into the right wing bracket then.

And I remember some posters telling me that the IRFU didn't contract all of the players in Ireland.

Oh my.

Lol.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'm not assuming that at all goon. Some are assuming that every verdict by the courts are correct.

I don't think either of your summation are correct in regards left or right goon.

No they are not. They are respecting the verdict, and basing their opinion and recommending action based on that verdict. You are not, that is the difference. Which is strange as you have agreed that the court and jury are in the best place to provide a neutral judgement on what happened, so why don't you respect it? I am truly baffled.

I'm glad you don't, we agree.

Olding rumoured to be in talks with Exeter

I reluctantly do respect the verdict goon even if I believe they did it. As I've stated.

carpet baboon wrote:Olding rumoured to be in talks with Exeter

Exeter have denied as have ASM with PJ. It'll be interesting to see where they land

No 7&1/2 wrote:I reluctantly do respect the verdict goon even if I believe they did it. As I've stated.

I've been fairly neutral, but have to pull this up.

Your statement is contradictory, you cannot respect the verdict and believe they did it. That means you do not respect the verdict.

I know you didn't attend every day of the trial therefore you are basing your opinion on partial evidence mostly from 3rd party sources.
With this incomplete, and not impartial information you have formed a different opinion to 12 people who have heard all the evidence from all sides of the case.

If this is how you reach your opinions I have less than no respect for them.

I don't think it is contradictory but to word it a different way I believe they did it but due to the outcome I believe that ulster should have taken them back and worked with them to help etc etc.