Ulster Rugby 2017-18

First topic message reminder :

Jeez - O’Donoghue eeled his way through that maul and caught Herring.

marty2086 wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:"How Ulster deal with the fallout of this will go a long way to limit the damage."

Very true RDW, this is an urgent priority that I would hope is fully prepared in the background pending the trial's conclusion. Ulster rugby need to distance themselves from the players involved and make it clear that the whole culture of thinking you can act as you please will never be tolerated at Ulster Rugby. Yes lads will always go for a few beers etc but to even put yourself in a position where allegations such as these can be made is insane.

Sorry but I hate that line, put themselves in a position? If they are innocent then what position should they have been in to avoid being accused? People have been falsely accused and didn't do what these guys might have done with another consenting adult. Just like it's not the girls fault if they are guilty.

Marty these two lads are household names, instantly recognizable and supposedly high profile professional sportsmen. There are ways and means to go out and have a good time whilst protecting that status and not leaving yourself open to gossip at best or accusations at the very worst.

carpet baboon wrote:

rodders wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:"How Ulster deal with the fallout of this will go a long way to limit the damage."

Very true RDW, this is an urgent priority that I would hope is fully prepared in the background pending the trial's conclusion. Ulster rugby need to distance themselves from the players involved and make it clear that the whole culture of thinking you can act as you please will never be tolerated at Ulster Rugby. Yes lads will always go for a few beers etc but to even put yourself in a position where allegations such as these can be made is insane.

Sorry but I hate that line, put themselves in a position? If they are innocent then what position should they have been in to avoid being accused? People have been falsely accused and didn't do what these guys might have done with another consenting adult. Just like it's not the girls fault if they are guilty.

Because even based on their own accounts and what they have admitted to, they should be fired.

The problem with that rodders is do we refuse to sell match day tickets to those we believe are morally suspect?
Do we refuse sponsorships from company's whos directors are not wholesome?
Who of us sets the moral benchmark?
The multiple partners is not new, it's been happening for hundreds of years. Whether you or I agree with it or think it's morally right does not matter, if the people involved are 100% happy to engage then that's up to them.
The issue here is consent and if it was explicitly given.
Do I think they will ever play for us again? Not a chance.
Do I agree with there views on how they spend there free time. No

You can set your own moral benchmark and hope for the best. As an employer you're entitled to set whatever moral benchmark you like and those who sign the contract will be obliged to follow suit.
Personally my own moral benchmark was pretty low as a young man, I did many questionable things and took many questionable substances. I was not however a recognizable face nor did I have so much to lose. In fact I have a face people prefer to forget and have absolutely nothing to lose

On brighter news we have a decent representation on the u20s team.
Stewart , Dalton and hall all starting. With curtis kernohan and O'Toole on the bench

carpet baboon wrote:

rodders wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:"How Ulster deal with the fallout of this will go a long way to limit the damage."

Very true RDW, this is an urgent priority that I would hope is fully prepared in the background pending the trial's conclusion. Ulster rugby need to distance themselves from the players involved and make it clear that the whole culture of thinking you can act as you please will never be tolerated at Ulster Rugby. Yes lads will always go for a few beers etc but to even put yourself in a position where allegations such as these can be made is insane.

Sorry but I hate that line, put themselves in a position? If they are innocent then what position should they have been in to avoid being accused? People have been falsely accused and didn't do what these guys might have done with another consenting adult. Just like it's not the girls fault if they are guilty.

Because even based on their own accounts and what they have admitted to, they should be fired.

The problem with that rodders is do we refuse to sell match day tickets to those we believe are morally suspect?
Do we refuse sponsorships from company's whos directors are not wholesome?
Who of us sets the moral benchmark?
The multiple partners is not new, it's been happening for hundreds of years. Whether you or I agree with it or think it's morally right does not matter, if the people involved are 100% happy to engage then that's up to them.
The issue here is consent and if it was explicitly given.
Do I think they will ever play for us again? Not a chance.
Do I agree with there views on how they spend there free time. No

Sorry Baboon but your first two sentences aren't really relevant. Ulster Rugby isn't effected if i (as an ulster supporter) engage in some form of illegal activity. Where i work might be effected but my rugby team has no bearing in it. Similarly we do not know who is wholesome privately. Would Ulster accept sponsorship from a company who openly espoused certain agendas like anti-Semitism or homophobia? I would certainly hope not but that's not really relevant to the point rodders is making. Olding and Jackson are agents of Ulster Rugby and rightly or wrongly what they do and say reflects upon that organisation. That's the reality.

We're all saying the men might - might - be guilty of a crime, as is obviously the case since they are in court accused of a few.
So I think it important to point out that there is also the possibility that the accuser, regardless of gender, is also potentially guilty of a crime.

I read more of the outline about what happened in that house that night - the comings and goings - and I'm obviously not going to try and run the trial here but it's very much back to an open mind on the whole episode from me.  
I'd need to hear a lot more now because there are a lot of curious details in the initial account.  If I was a jury member I'd already be asking so many questions even of that initial report into the circumstances.  

Anyway, question:  If accused A is found innocent of a crime, is not accuser B then automatically liable to be accused of a crime?  Or would it be just put down to a person acting on a sudden realisation of shame or shock that they might have engaged in activity that was out of character?  A false accusation of the crimes mentioned, considering that lucrative careers and reputations are at stake, is a deathly serious crime in my eyes - and a trial would be needed to assess guilt or innocence.

Nobody that might have committed a crime on or after that night should escape a just punishment.

Standulstermen wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

rodders wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:"How Ulster deal with the fallout of this will go a long way to limit the damage."

Very true RDW, this is an urgent priority that I would hope is fully prepared in the background pending the trial's conclusion. Ulster rugby need to distance themselves from the players involved and make it clear that the whole culture of thinking you can act as you please will never be tolerated at Ulster Rugby. Yes lads will always go for a few beers etc but to even put yourself in a position where allegations such as these can be made is insane.

Sorry but I hate that line, put themselves in a position? If they are innocent then what position should they have been in to avoid being accused? People have been falsely accused and didn't do what these guys might have done with another consenting adult. Just like it's not the girls fault if they are guilty.

Because even based on their own accounts and what they have admitted to, they should be fired.

The problem with that rodders is do we refuse to sell match day tickets to those we believe are morally suspect?
Do we refuse sponsorships from company's whos directors are not wholesome?
Who of us sets the moral benchmark?
The multiple partners is not new, it's been happening for hundreds of years. Whether you or I agree with it or think it's morally right does not matter, if the people involved are 100% happy to engage then that's up to them.
The issue here is consent and if it was explicitly given.
Do I think they will ever play for us again? Not a chance.
Do I agree with there views on how they spend there free time. No

Sorry Baboon but your first two sentences aren't really relevant. Ulster Rugby isn't effected if i (as an ulster supporter) engage in some form of illegal activity. Where i work might be effected but my rugby team has no bearing in it. Similarly we do not know who is wholesome privately. Would Ulster accept sponsorship from a company who openly espoused certain agendas like anti-Semitism or homophobia? I would certainly hope not but that's not really relevant to the point rodders is making. Olding and Jackson are agents of Ulster Rugby and rightly or wrongly what they do and say reflects upon that organisation. That's the reality.

I agree, my point is if this had not ended up in the news would it matter? What they have admitted to is having sex with the same partner at the same time.
How my reading of rodders statement was this alone is enough for them to be sacked, my point was that as long as all parties are in 100% agreement as to the acts then who are we to judge?
But the court case isn't about 3 people in agreement and they will be judged on that fact.

SecretFly wrote:We're all saying the men might - might - be guilty of a crime, as is obviously the case since they are in court accused of a few.
So I think it important to point out that there is also the possibility that the accuser, regardless of gender, is also potentially guilty of a crime.

I read more of the outline about what happened in that house that night - the comings and goings - and I'm obviously not going to try and run the trial here but it's very much back to an open mind on the whole episode from me.  
I'd need to hear a lot more now because there are a lot of curious details in the initial account.  If I was a jury member I'd already be asking so many questions even of that initial report into the circumstances.  

Anyway, question:  If accused A is found innocent of a crime, is not accuser B then automatically liable to be accused of a crime?  Or would it be just put down to a person acting on a sudden realisation of shame or shock that they might have engaged in activity that was out of character?  A false accusation of the crimes mentioned, considering that lucrative careers and reputations are at stake, is a deathly serious crime in my eyes - and a trial would be needed to assess guilt or innocence.

Nobody that might have committed a crime on or after that night should escape a just punishment.

Having worked on a call line for the sexually abused I can tell you everything that was reported yesterday as well as her testimony is completely in line with a woman being raped. We will see how the defense responds, but focusing on the potential punishment for a woman who was allegedly gangraped is a little early in the process don't you think Fly?

Only the most passionate 'Ulster are Brill' fan could fail to see that Ulster Rugby do not come out of this well. They can disassociate themselves from an individual's actions but are they absolved of their connection to their players' image off the pitch?

All four of the accused were Ulster Academy players, and it is fairly well known how this group and others from the squad (plus ex rugby mates) regularly go partying round Belfast. They are regulars at a number of particular haunts including the Merchant and if anyone is interested just speak to the staff to see what they think of high-rolling laddish behaviour. Neither are they naive regarding liaisons with the opposite sex - there have been enough precedents recalled inside the dressing room walls for them to know what is acceptable and what isn't.

If brand image really is so important to Ulster Rugby, surely they will have carefully schooled their brand ambassadors in how to behave off the pitch, and any dissenter would receive appropriate reproach or redress? Ulster Rugby is a team, and in public the players are part of that whether walking on grass or tarmac.

This time I tend to agree with what Fly is saying. It is not beyond reasonable thought that this could be entrapment. Now, I am not saying that it is but the potential is there. The full truth may never come out, even after an extensive court case.

wolfball wrote:

SecretFly wrote:We're all saying the men might - might - be guilty of a crime, as is obviously the case since they are in court accused of a few.
So I think it important to point out that there is also the possibility that the accuser, regardless of gender, is also potentially guilty of a crime.

I read more of the outline about what happened in that house that night - the comings and goings - and I'm obviously not going to try and run the trial here but it's very much back to an open mind on the whole episode from me.  
I'd need to hear a lot more now because there are a lot of curious details in the initial account.  If I was a jury member I'd already be asking so many questions even of that initial report into the circumstances.  

Anyway, question:  If accused A is found innocent of a crime, is not accuser B then automatically liable to be accused of a crime?  Or would it be just put down to a person acting on a sudden realisation of shame or shock that they might have engaged in activity that was out of character?  A false accusation of the crimes mentioned, considering that lucrative careers and reputations are at stake, is a deathly serious crime in my eyes - and a trial would be needed to assess guilt or innocence.

Nobody that might have committed a crime on or after that night should escape a just punishment.

Having worked on a call line for the sexually abused I can tell you everything that was reported yesterday as well as her testimony is completely in line with a woman being raped. We will see how the defense responds, but focusing on the potential punishment for a woman who was allegedly gangraped is a little early in the process don't you think Fly?

It's a little early in the process to be assuming she was gangraped and of course everything is in line with what sounds like a woman actually being raped but don't you think the prosecution would be professional enough to make that so?

The Great Aukster wrote:
If brand image really is so important to Ulster Rugby, surely they will have carefully schooled their brand ambassadors in how to behave off the pitch, and any dissenter would receive appropriate reproach or redress? Ulster Rugby is a team, and in public the players are part of that whether walking on grass or tarmac.

Absolutely, it's something that's been in my mind for a long time. Who instructs the players on media relations and how to act in public? I have it written in my contract how I'm supposed to behave in my free time and I'm not a household name attached to a well respected brand.

SecretFly wrote:We're all saying the men might - might - be guilty of a crime, as is obviously the case since they are in court accused of a few.
So I think it important to point out that there is also the possibility that the accuser, regardless of gender, is also potentially guilty of a crime.

I read more of the outline about what happened in that house that night - the comings and goings - and I'm obviously not going to try and run the trial here but it's very much back to an open mind on the whole episode from me.  
I'd need to hear a lot more now because there are a lot of curious details in the initial account.  If I was a jury member I'd already be asking so many questions even of that initial report into the circumstances.  

Anyway, question:  If accused A is found innocent of a crime, is not accuser B then automatically liable to be accused of a crime?  Or would it be just put down to a person acting on a sudden realisation of shame or shock that they might have engaged in activity that was out of character?  A false accusation of the crimes mentioned, considering that lucrative careers and reputations are at stake, is a deathly serious crime in my eyes - and a trial would be needed to assess guilt or innocence.

Nobody that might have committed a crime on or after that night should escape a just punishment.

The problem is Secret that innocent does not mean they did not do it, just that the prosecution was not able to prove the case beyond all reasonable doubt.
If it was found that it was totally fabricated and there was proof of that then the accuser would indeed be guilty of a crime.
However with this type of case proof of anything is extremely hard to get, the guys from what I have heard have confirmed they did have intercourse with the accuser, that means it all comes down to if she consented, that is extremely hard to prove either way.
If the 2 guys get found innocent that will most likely be because the case could not be proved beyond all reasonable doubt (which having been a juror in the past was explained to us that you must be absolutely sure within reason that the accused did what the prosecution allege) Getting found innocent does not mean that all is well and they did nothing wrong and that the accuser lied and should be prosecuted.
Frankly thank god it doesn't either otherwise even fewer people would come forward if they had been raped.

Pete330v2 wrote:

wolfball wrote:

SecretFly wrote:We're all saying the men might - might - be guilty of a crime, as is obviously the case since they are in court accused of a few.
So I think it important to point out that there is also the possibility that the accuser, regardless of gender, is also potentially guilty of a crime.

I read more of the outline about what happened in that house that night - the comings and goings - and I'm obviously not going to try and run the trial here but it's very much back to an open mind on the whole episode from me.  
I'd need to hear a lot more now because there are a lot of curious details in the initial account.  If I was a jury member I'd already be asking so many questions even of that initial report into the circumstances.  

Anyway, question:  If accused A is found innocent of a crime, is not accuser B then automatically liable to be accused of a crime?  Or would it be just put down to a person acting on a sudden realisation of shame or shock that they might have engaged in activity that was out of character?  A false accusation of the crimes mentioned, considering that lucrative careers and reputations are at stake, is a deathly serious crime in my eyes - and a trial would be needed to assess guilt or innocence.

Nobody that might have committed a crime on or after that night should escape a just punishment.

Having worked on a call line for the sexually abused I can tell you everything that was reported yesterday as well as her testimony is completely in line with a woman being raped. We will see how the defense responds, but focusing on the potential punishment for a woman who was allegedly gangraped is a little early in the process don't you think Fly?

It's a little early in the process to be assuming she was gangraped and of course everything is in line with what sounds like a woman actually being raped but don't you think the prosecution would be professional enough to make that so?

Who assumed anything? The charge is multiple men raping a woman (ie "alleged gangrape" the exact words I used, note the alleged).

eirebilly wrote:This time I tend to agree with what Fly is saying. It is not beyond reasonable thought that this could be entrapment. Now, I am not saying that it is but the potential is there.  The full truth may never come out, even after an extensive court case.

It is also the case that this is the one serious crime where "entrapment" is even a consideration. Sure it can happen, but its so exceedingly rare based on the vastly more women who never report anything when raped, thinking about entrapment without any evidence seems absurd. Let the case play itself out, but maybe we shouldn't rush to considering punishing the alleged victim when there are four others actually on trial.

wolfball wrote:

eirebilly wrote:This time I tend to agree with what Fly is saying. It is not beyond reasonable thought that this could be entrapment. Now, I am not saying that it is but the potential is there.  The full truth may never come out, even after an extensive court case.

It is also the case that this is the one serious crime where "entrapment" is even a consideration. Sure it can happen, but its so exceedingly rare based on the vastly more women who never report anything when raped, thinking about entrapment without any evidence seems absurd. Let the case play itself out, but maybe we shouldn't rush to considering punishing the alleged victim when there are four others actually on trial.

I am not rushing to condemn either party in this case. I am simply stating that it can be seen from two sides. As I said, the truth may never fully come out.

wolfball wrote:

SecretFly wrote:We're all saying the men might - might - be guilty of a crime, as is obviously the case since they are in court accused of a few.
So I think it important to point out that there is also the possibility that the accuser, regardless of gender, is also potentially guilty of a crime.

I read more of the outline about what happened in that house that night - the comings and goings - and I'm obviously not going to try and run the trial here but it's very much back to an open mind on the whole episode from me.  
I'd need to hear a lot more now because there are a lot of curious details in the initial account.  If I was a jury member I'd already be asking so many questions even of that initial report into the circumstances.  

Anyway, question:  If accused A is found innocent of a crime, is not accuser B then automatically liable to be accused of a crime?  Or would it be just put down to a person acting on a sudden realisation of shame or shock that they might have engaged in activity that was out of character?  A false accusation of the crimes mentioned, considering that lucrative careers and reputations are at stake, is a deathly serious crime in my eyes - and a trial would be needed to assess guilt or innocence.

Nobody that might have committed a crime on or after that night should escape a just punishment.

Having worked on a call line for the sexually abused I can tell you everything that was reported yesterday as well as her testimony is completely in line with a woman being raped. We will see how the defense responds, but focusing on the potential punishment for a woman who was allegedly gangraped is a little early in the process don't you think Fly?

No it isn't a little early, wolf and I won't be sidetracked from my point by the presumption that there are already people here more innocent than the accused who are themselves in law innocent until proven guilty.

I am saying it is important to always be aware that the accused are not only protesting their innocence in reference to an offence, they are protesting their innocence in reference to an accusation - made by another human being. Nobody is innocent or guilty in law until the case is proven. IF the men are found innocent, then that presumes something else happened on the night that excludes the charge of r*** and other charges before the court.

carpet baboon wrote:
I agree, my point is if this had not ended up in the news would it matter?  What they have admitted to is  having sex with the same partner at the same time.
How my reading of rodders statement was this alone is enough for them to be sacked, my point was that as long as all parties are in 100% agreement as to the acts then who are we to judge?
But the court case isn't about 3 people in agreement and they will be judged on that fact.

Let me clarify my point. I can't comment on whether they are guilty of the charges, that is for the court.

However enough is out there now in the public domain for me to say their behaviour on that evening and after, as well as how they've dealt with the investigation so far to say that they should never pull on Ulster jersey again.

Jackson must have told some porkies to have been picked for the summer tour because if the IRFU had known some of these details around the allegations, and evidence against them, I cannot believe he would have been in contention.

carpet baboon wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:

carpet baboon wrote:

rodders wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:"How Ulster deal with the fallout of this will go a long way to limit the damage."

Very true RDW, this is an urgent priority that I would hope is fully prepared in the background pending the trial's conclusion. Ulster rugby need to distance themselves from the players involved and make it clear that the whole culture of thinking you can act as you please will never be tolerated at Ulster Rugby. Yes lads will always go for a few beers etc but to even put yourself in a position where allegations such as these can be made is insane.

Sorry but I hate that line, put themselves in a position? If they are innocent then what position should they have been in to avoid being accused? People have been falsely accused and didn't do what these guys might have done with another consenting adult. Just like it's not the girls fault if they are guilty.

Because even based on their own accounts and what they have admitted to, they should be fired.

The problem with that rodders is do we refuse to sell match day tickets to those we believe are morally suspect?
Do we refuse sponsorships from company's whos directors are not wholesome?
Who of us sets the moral benchmark?
The multiple partners is not new, it's been happening for hundreds of years. Whether you or I agree with it or think it's morally right does not matter, if the people involved are 100% happy to engage then that's up to them.
The issue here is consent and if it was explicitly given.
Do I think they will ever play for us again? Not a chance.
Do I agree with there views on how they spend there free time. No

Sorry Baboon but your first two sentences aren't really relevant. Ulster Rugby isn't effected if i (as an ulster supporter) engage in some form of illegal activity. Where i work might be effected but my rugby team has no bearing in it. Similarly we do not know who is wholesome privately. Would Ulster accept sponsorship from a company who openly espoused certain agendas like anti-Semitism or homophobia? I would certainly hope not but that's not really relevant to the point rodders is making. Olding and Jackson are agents of Ulster Rugby and rightly or wrongly what they do and say reflects upon that organisation. That's the reality.

I agree, my point is if this had not ended up in the news would it matter?  What they have admitted to is  having sex with the same partner at the same time.
How my reading of rodders statement was this alone is enough for them to be sacked, my point was that as long as all parties are in 100% agreement as to the acts then who are we to judge?
But the court case isn't about 3 people in agreement and they will be judged on that fact.

The act (if it is deemed consensual) is not what they will be punished for. I would suggest the derogatory language that they have used in the WhatsApp (im presuming this stuff isn't up for debate at this point) is enough for an organisation like Ulster and the IRFU to cut ties. I said before im sure similar language is used around various sporting clubs all over the world. Its not a pleasant thought but realistic. Like i say when they public are privy to these conversations though its a whole new ball game

Back on the rugby front it seems like Ulster have made a decision...

http://ulsterrugby.com/news/16940.php#.WnH_R-fLjIU

Kiss Out

Christ! It's all happening now. What a period for Ulster Rugby. Take a walk on the Wild Side

Well I didn't expect that, i mean I did expect him to go but not right now mid-season.
Will be interesting to see what happens with the job from here.
I suppose with the trial and the 6 nations beginning Ulster maybe thought they could sneak that one out there without too much fuss

It's Goodbye Kiss.

Gibbes to take over DOR/Coach responsibilities. He's going to have a rough remainder of the season.

thebandwagonsociety wrote:It's Goodbye Kiss.

Gibbes to take over DOR/Coach responsibilities.  He's going to have a rough remainder of the season.

Hopefully he'll have been in enough disagreement with Kiss about the details behind the scenes for him to have a positive and immediate impact on player morale and performances.  

It's a pity that the downswing became bad enough to necessitate the leaving of Kiss without finishing out the season but I don't think the beginning of a solution could be found by any other means.  Gibbes mightn't be the answer but Kiss wasn't getting the ship moving in the right way.

Well there we go.

Zero insider info, but you felt there was a real change in the reporting after the Connacht match. You saw it with the BBC but that had to come from power brokers at the branch whispering their discontent. Almost as if the blazers are so old that they couldn't remember Connacht being anything other than awful and us suffering our greatest defeat to them in history of the game really forced the execs to take action.

Press release says Gibbs will be handling all coaching matters, that's quite different from a Director of Rugby. I suspect Cunningham will see increased responsibilities in that area, if not be named outright DoR.

Statement also say that they're looking at other coaching options ... presumably that means they're seeing if they need a new defence coach.

Redman wrote:Zero insider info, but you felt there was a real change in the reporting after the Connacht match.  You saw it with the BBC but that had to come from power brokers at the branch whispering their discontent.  Almost as if the blazers are so old that they couldn't remember Connacht being anything other than awful and us suffering our greatest defeat to them in history of the game really forced the execs to take action.  

Press release says Gibbs will be handling all coaching matters, that's quite different from a Director of Rugby.  I suspect Cunningham will see increased responsibilities in that area, if not be named outright DoR.  

Statement also say that they're looking at other coaching options ... presumably that means they're seeing if they need a new defence coach.  

I still say my idea of a DOR is that he decides (maybe in consultation with the head coach but not necessarily so in legal terms) the players and/or coaches he wants to bring in.  He's the overall BOSS.  

I say I prefer the main man on the field to be in charge of players coming or going and assistant coaches.  I know he can't have time for all the bookwork and budgeting that is involved, but this idea of a non-coaching DOR is against my philosophy of how rugby should be run.  

The Head coach should of course have office assistants to do the detail on his wishes and search for the players he might want, and negotiate with their agents/the IRFU etc... and of course he has to be constrained by accountants etc - but the Head Coach should be absolute boss over all strands of what happens on the field, and that very much includes his choice of players (if he can get/afford them) and his choice of coaching assistants (if he can get/afford them)

So do we know of any DORs who are available for next year?
Malinder?

carpet baboon wrote:So do we know of any DORs who are available for next year?
Malinder?

Allister Coetzee?

Damnit. Just when I’m about to comment on the trial, I see the topic has changed.
Personally, it’ll take a lot to convince me that a simple Kiss Out/Gibbes Promotion will solve our problems.

If I can go back to the trial, and specifically the idea that what the boys were at was harmless as long as consensual. Not in my book. For me, it’s an outworking of the online porn era where sex is pretty much a new form if masturbation but with using others people bodies instead of your own hand.

For me, sex, even for the non religious should be an act of love and affection. I somehow doubt judging my their account and their WhatsApp review that these guys were in anyway bothered if the girl was having a good time. Even if the girl consented I would still argue that this is only a product of a sick society where some girls feel this is what they have to ‘offer up’ if they want to be accepted by men.

It’s not a new thing to have multiple partners. It’s also not a new thing for girls to feel they just have to submit to the sexualisation of relationships in this modern day.

It's also not a new thing for the lads in the dock. This time however the girl wasn't into it.

Oh and now that Les has gone can the blazers f3ck off as well, and Logan too?
Does anyone know a good defence coach?

clivemcl wrote:

If I can go back to the trial, and specifically the idea that what the boys were at was harmless as long as consensual. Not in my book. For me, it’s an outworking of the online porn era where sex is pretty much a new form if masturbation but with using others people bodies instead of your own hand.

For me, sex, even for the non religious should be an act of love and affection. I somehow doubt judging my their account and their WhatsApp review that these guys were in anyway bothered if the girl was having a good time. Even if the girl consented I would still argue that this is only a product of a sick society where some girls feel this is what they have to ‘offer up’ if they want to be accepted by men.

It’s not a new thing to have multiple partners. It’s also not a new thing for girls to feel they just have to submit to the sexualisation of relationships in this modern day.

I agree with all the comments in bold.

Pete330v2 wrote:It's also not a new thing for the lads in the dock. This time however the girl wasn't into it.

Oh and now that Les has gone can the blazers f3ck off as well, and Logan too?
Does anyone know a good defence coach?

Jared Payne isn't doing anything else, might as well let him have a go as long as we don't have one

Pete330v2 wrote:It's also not a new thing for the lads in the dock. This time however the girl wasn't into it.

Oh and now that Les has gone can the blazers f3ck off as well, and Logan too?
Does anyone know a good defence coach?

Jesus Pete don't. I was almost goaded into giving a very off colour response to that (given the present circumstances in legal land ). It obviously wouldn't have been appropriate! But cut that out with the weird word reference link ups............

“Ruan is an absolute gentleman so I was a little bit sad for him and his family. They didn't want to go. I think to be honest, it did drag on a little bit. I know our supporters love him a lot - and they are right to love him for everything he did - but I just felt that we should accept this. The flak that the IRFU took, and nobody has actually come out since and said, 'Do you know what? We abused the IRFU and we were completely wrong'.

"Cooney has probably been our best player this season - he will probably tell you that!"

Darren Cave

Just finished reading a book called "Missoula" by Jon Krakeur. It examines the question of r*** and student athletes at the University of Montana. Without passing judgement, there are many parallels between the stories in that book and the current situation regarding the Ulster lads. The one thing that became clear in the book is the difficulty in identifying the facts of a case. However, one point, alluded to above, is that innocent is not the same as not guilty.

humphstheman wrote:Just finished reading a book called "Missoula" by Jon Krakeur. It examines the question of r*** and student athletes at the University of Montana. Without passing judgement, there are many parallels between the stories in that book and the current situation regarding the Ulster lads. The one thing that became clear in the book is the difficulty in identifying the facts of a case. However, one point, alluded to above, is that innocent is not the same as not guilty.

I’ve argued the point before . The phrase ‘innocent until proven guilty’ is nothing more than a popular phrase. The reality of any trial is ‘lack of evidence means inconclusive’.

You can argue their ‘innocence’ in order to protect them from potential prejudice of course but people’s minds... that’s another thing. No law can force people to remove their feelings of disgust and suspicion.

Like it or not, the ship has sailed on that, regardless of trial outcome.

Dear Stuart Lancaster, obviously you have found working in Dublin a breeze, would you not like a challenge instead.

In positive news thats the first time Ulster have been able to mention mutual consent in a while.

I see references about players going to the trial and what message does this send.
The assumption being they are going there to support the two on trial.

At least one player who was there will not be supporting them - just the opposite.
So please do not take attendance by other players as evidence of support

Worryingly I see that Black may well be away.
As I mentioned last year the plan was always he would not get his contract renewed
However given his form this year (our best LH) and give vDM is useless can we afford to lose him?
Hopefully gives credence to the Dooley on one year loan story.
Alternatively will we be cutting vDM adrift and getting in a decent LH
We cant go into next season with McCall, vDM, Warwick and O'Hagan

Gibbes doesn't seem keen to be head honcho but is prepared to hold the fort till the summer.
Expect a new Head Coach in the summer
Jared Payne seems to be taking up defensive coach duties - further evidence of his pending retirement

trustedwomble wrote:Back on the rugby front it seems like Ulster have made a decision...

http://ulsterrugby.com/news/16940.php#.WnH_R-fLjIU

Kiss Out

Jesus what an omnishambles Ulster has become.

So Kiss came in when the club were in crisis and leaves in another.

Personally I feel he was never the man for the job but have some sympathy that he's been scapegoated a bit as clearly there is a lot more wrong at Ulster than the head coach/DoR or whatever he was.

So we are into our second review of the coaching set up in 2 seasons, it is like a comedy - the whole organization, including the amateur end is a mess.

rodders wrote:

trustedwomble wrote:Back on the rugby front it seems like Ulster have made a decision...

http://ulsterrugby.com/news/16940.php#.WnH_R-fLjIU

Kiss Out

Jesus what an omnishambles Ulster has become.

So Kiss came in when the club were in crisis and leaves in another.  

Personally I feel he was never the man for the job but have some sympathy that he's been scapegoated a bit as clearly there is a lot more wrong at Ulster than the head coach/DoR or whatever he was.

So we are into our second review of the coaching set up in 2 seasons, it is like a comedy - the whole organization, including the amateur end is a mess.

I can't argue with that Rodders. It's a Clusterduck of epic proportions. We simply cannot keep getting rid of coaches when it's not entirely the coaches that are at fault.

On t'other forum they are claiming that Black is indeed going and has signed for Worcester Warriors, his old club.

geoff999rugby wrote:I see references about players going to the trial and what message does this send.
The assumption being they are going there to support the two on trial.

At least one player who was there will not be supporting them - just the opposite.
So please do not take attendance by other players as evidence of support

That will have been me.

I see Best and Henderson were also in attendance.

I take your point that I am assuming they are there to support their mates, I may be in error, but I do think that is how people will interpret it.

The girl in question stated she could not 'take on' Ulster Rugby. Having current players there looks like she is having to do just that.

I just think it looks bad for Ulster Rugby. Though if the allegations are true, Ulster Rugby's reputation is not the most important thing in this sorry affair.

Interesting what you are saying there Geoff although i find it hard to believe any UR player would go unless it was to support them. Unless they are possible witnesses

Standulstermen wrote:Interesting what you are saying there Geoff although i find it hard to believe any UR player would go unless it was to support them. Unless they are possible witnesses

Really? I think some of the reporting of the case pretty much suggested a reason why they might not be there supporting them

Do you have link to that marty? Was it written reporting or TV/radio? I'm genuinely interested.

There will be players there supporting the young lady in question and it will be important for them to do so.
It would be inappropriate to say why.

This is why, regardless of the outcome, these two will never play for Ulster again

marty2086 wrote:

Standulstermen wrote:Interesting what you are saying there Geoff although i find it hard to believe any UR player would go unless it was to support them. Unless they are possible witnesses

Really? I think some of the reporting of the case pretty much suggested a reason why they might not be there supporting them

If you are referring to the 'taking on Ulster Rugby' narrative Marty and the implication of Best and Hendo being there as some kind of intimidation then thats just daft

Not that youre referring to it, but rather the narrative itself

geoff999rugby wrote:There will be players there supporting the young lady in question and it will be important for them to do so.
It would be inappropriate to say why.

This is why, regardless of the outcome, these two will never play for Ulster again

I wish the media would clarify things like this as the public will simply assume they are all supporting the defendants.

As I'm making wishes I wish Ulster rugby could simply publicly distance themselves from these players. I know there are legal reason why they can't but hey, it's just a wish.