Ulster Rugby 2017-18

by Pot Hale Mon Jan 01, 2018 6:25 pm

First topic message reminder :

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

by marty2086 Sun Feb 04, 2018 10:56 am

geoff999rugby wrote:So legal requirement to attend.

Apology please Bradshaw and also those ill informed fans criticising.
Did they expect him to be in contempt of court to satisfy their moralistic purity

Not sure it was a legal requirement but seems he found it a moral necessity to hear what the woman had to say

by Standulstermen Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:05 am

It will be interesting to see if he is ever called. I think the irfu realised the no comment line wasn’t working and told GT to ask again and he would get the answer which was handled well.

by carpet baboon Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:28 pm

Standulstermen wrote:It will be interesting to see if he is ever called. I think the irfu realised the no comment line wasn’t working and told GT to ask again and he would get the answer which was handled well.

I understand why he might be called, but it doesn't strike me that best hung out with paddy or Stu outside of work, so if the defense want to use him as an example that they are of good character whilst in work, any decent prosecutor would be able to dismiss his work testimony against how they act outside of work.

by Sin é Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:38 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:Paula who?

Oh I forgot, another opportunist politician trying to tap into populist opinion and sway a few votes her way. Hypocrite! The very party that is supposed to take an empathetic open-minded view has an advocate demonstrating the opposite.
How can she presume to comment on the motivation of any person present at the trial, let alone specifically pick Rory Best, the Ireland Captain on the eve of the Six Nations? Er... oh yeah!

The holier than thou Dublin press are obviously setting up the Ulster players should Ireland lose, and no doubt will be calling for Rory's head in that eventuality - but at least their level of reporting is consistent with the gutter it normally runs through. I have a lot of time for Naomi Long as a person, but if her party politicians are allowed to get away with this level of duplicity, perhaps she is not the person I thought she was.

Think you are jumping the gun there and putting words in her mouth. Here is what was posted by the MLA:

Paula Bradshaw MLA‏Verified account @PaulaJaneB
*r*** Trial*
I have written to @UlsterRugby to ask what guidance was provided to its team members in relation to attending the r*** trial, in Belfast Crown Court this week, to support the accused.

I will post its response ...

----
Nothing wrong with asking a question of an organisation that is in receipt of large amounts of public funding (i.e., recent redevelopment of Ravenhill).

by SecretFly Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:42 pm

Sin é wrote:

Think you are jumping the gun there and putting words in her mouth. Here is what was posted by the MLA:

Paula Bradshaw MLA‏Verified account @PaulaJaneB
*r*** Trial*
I have written to @UlsterRugby to ask what guidance was provided to its team members in relation to attending the r*** trial, in Belfast Crown Court this week, to support the accused.

I will post its response ...

----
Nothing wrong with asking a question of an organisation that is in receipt of large amounts of public funding (i.e., recent redevelopment of Ravenhill).

That's someone jumping the gun...before the response from Ulster Rugby came in. Anyway, the two men were on Ireland duty at the time.

by Sin é Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:47 pm

geoff999rugby wrote:So legal requirement to attend.

Apology please Bradshaw and also those ill informed fans criticising.
Did they expect him to be in contempt of court to satisfy their moralistic purity

Not a legal requirement.

Rory Best explains reason behind attendance at trial
Ireland captain says he was advised to attend after being called as a character witness

rory wrote:
“The reason I was there, it’s on the record I was called as a character witness, and I was advised that it is important that I got both sides of the story so I could make an informed decision about that.

If someone is called as a character witness, surely it doesn't matter how the trial goes. He sounds like he will be influenced by what is said in the trial. Does that mean he will be decline to be a character witness if he doesn't like the look at how its going. He has been called as a character witness - not a member of the jury.

by Sin é Sun Feb 04, 2018 1:58 pm

Standulstermen wrote:It will be interesting to see if he is ever called. I think the irfu realised the no comment line wasn’t working and told GT to ask again and he would get the answer which was handled well.

Don't think that is the way it works. One of the players obviously asked him to be a character witness - he could be trying to decide whether he will be or not.

Interesting tale here -

Loyalty not always the right response

May 17 2009 12:00 AM

This is an awful story. Kevin Walsh, from Bruff, was 16 years old when his family's car was struck from behind by a jeep being driven by a former Irish rugby international near Toomevara three years ago. Kevin Walsh died. Eddie Halvey was more than two times over the legal alcohol limit for drivers when the crash happened.

At Nenagh District Court on Tuesday, Halvey received a seven-month suspended sentence for dangerous driving and driving under the influence of alcohol. Kate Walsh, the mother of the dead boy, said: "Just because Eddie Halvey is a sportsman and played for Ireland he got a slap on the wrist in court today. It sent out the wrong message to everyone in Ireland today. Go out, play sports, drink drive, you can kill someone and you won't get punished in court for it."

I will venture no opinion as to whether the court decision was correct or not. Presumably, the judge felt there was good reason to let Halvey walk free. But Kate Walsh's words haunt me.

What if she's right? It goes without saying that the wretched Halvey has no one but himself to blame for what he did. Yet there was something disturbing about the appearance in court of Mick Galwey who, speaking on the defendant's behalf, gave evidence as to how his former team-mate had been a different man since the accident and felt much remorse.

Galwey is one of the icons of Irish sport and presumably he wouldn't have turned up in court if he didn't think he could help Halvey. Yet in aiding his old team-mate he was taking the side of a wrongdoer against a grieving family. Kate Walsh would have hoped that Halvey got the heaviest sentence possible. Mick Galwey was hoping for the opposite result. It was a grubby act he committed. Loyalty is not always a good thing.

Sometimes sports journalists tend to write about sport in moral terms, as if the performers whose feats we cover are not just better at kicking, throwing or striking a ball than other people but have some life lessons to impart to the general population. The case of Eddie Halvey shows just how wrong this is. Perhaps if the likes of myself didn't spend so much time making heroes out of the likes of him, he might have behaved a bit better that day.

It's ironic that Halvey is a Limerick man. Because, recently, there has been a lot of talk about the need to jail gang members in Limerick. And, around the time of the murder of Shane Geoghegan, there were many statements about how rugby players in the city were the antithesis of the criminals.

Well, if you can see the moral difference between Eddie Halvey and some pissed-up gunman, fair play to you. Because I don't think I can. And I'm pretty sure Kate Walsh can't.

And if sport did play even the smallest part in helping Halvey escape with a slap on the wrist, then anyone who loves sport should feel shamed. Because all the rugby games Mick Galwey ever played mean much, much less than the life of a single teenage boy.

-----

Mick Galwey got huge criticism for that and lost his halo as an inspirational Munster captain after that.

by SecretFly Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:00 pm

More presumptions though, sin.

One would assume that Rory, in the course of the year or so, has already been 'influenced' - by conversations about the charged players or indeed WITH charged players themselves. Perhaps it's not unreasonable to suggest that these players protested their innocence to certain team mates at some point?

So already the notion is reasonable that Rory heard one side of a story. It's not unreasonable then for him to seek out the other side FROM the source itself. So he attends court on the day the accuser is giving evidence.

One more presumption. Rory will obviously be asked to tell the truth in any Character witness report. So it doesn't necessarily follow that such evidence presented by him would naturally be completely supportive of charged players. He'll tell the truth as he sees it depending on the questions asked.

by Standulstermen Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:05 pm

Sin é wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:Paula who?

Oh I forgot, another opportunist politician trying to tap into populist opinion and sway a few votes her way. Hypocrite! The very party that is supposed to take an empathetic open-minded view has an advocate demonstrating the opposite.
How can she presume to comment on the motivation of any person present at the trial, let alone specifically pick Rory Best, the Ireland Captain on the eve of the Six Nations? Er... oh yeah!

The holier than thou Dublin press are obviously setting up the Ulster players should Ireland lose, and no doubt will be calling for Rory's head in that eventuality - but at least their level of reporting is consistent with the gutter it normally runs through. I have a lot of time for Naomi Long as a person, but if her party politicians are allowed to get away with this level of duplicity, perhaps she is not the person I thought she was.

Think you are jumping the gun there and putting words in her mouth. Here is what was posted by the MLA:

Paula Bradshaw MLA‏Verified account @PaulaJaneB
*r*** Trial*
I have written to @UlsterRugby to ask what guidance was provided to its team members in relation to attending the r*** trial, in Belfast Crown Court this week, to support the accused.

I will post its response ...

----
Nothing wrong with asking a question of an organisation that is in receipt of large amounts of public funding (i.e., recent redevelopment of Ravenhill).

Sorry Sin but you cant have it both ways. If Rory Best and Hendo were assumed to be aware of the reaction they would get by attending the trial then this politician (by the same standards) would be aware of the reaction she would get with that tweet. Put plainly shes used an ongiong r*** trial as a means to canvass support and get her name out there. Scum

by Sin é Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:14 pm

SecretFly wrote:More presumptions though, sin.

One would assume that Rory, in the course of the year or so, has already been 'influenced' - by conversations about the charged players or indeed WITH charged players themselves. Perhaps it's not unreasonable to suggest that these players protested their innocence to certain team mates at some point?

So already the notion is reasonable that Rory heard one side of a story. It's not unreasonable then for him to seek out the other side FROM the source itself. So he attends court on the day the accuser is giving evidence.

One more presumption. Rory will obviously be asked to tell the truth in any Character witness report. So it doesn't necessarily follow that such evidence presented by him would naturally be completely supportive of charged players. He'll tell the truth as he sees it depending on the questions asked.

Rory wasn't at the party (as far as I know), so the only thing he will give is his opinion on the character of whichever player he was asked to be a character witness for. The reason why he was asked probably is because as Ulster & Ireland captain, his opinion will carry weight. Now if he says the player in question is a great lad, works hard, good team player etc. etc. even if innocent, what does that say about Ulster rugby ethics if the Ulster captain seems to turn a blind eye to the unacceptable behaviour of supposed role models?

Read the Eddie Halvey/Galwey story.

by Sin é Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:20 pm

Standulstermen wrote:
Sin é wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:Paula who?

Oh I forgot, another opportunist politician trying to tap into populist opinion and sway a few votes her way. Hypocrite! The very party that is supposed to take an empathetic open-minded view has an advocate demonstrating the opposite.
How can she presume to comment on the motivation of any person present at the trial, let alone specifically pick Rory Best, the Ireland Captain on the eve of the Six Nations? Er... oh yeah!

The holier than thou Dublin press are obviously setting up the Ulster players should Ireland lose, and no doubt will be calling for Rory's head in that eventuality - but at least their level of reporting is consistent with the gutter it normally runs through. I have a lot of time for Naomi Long as a person, but if her party politicians are allowed to get away with this level of duplicity, perhaps she is not the person I thought she was.

Think you are jumping the gun there and putting words in her mouth. Here is what was posted by the MLA:

Paula Bradshaw MLA‏Verified account @PaulaJaneB
*r*** Trial*
I have written to @UlsterRugby to ask what guidance was provided to its team members in relation to attending the r*** trial, in Belfast Crown Court this week, to support the accused.

I will post its response ...

----
Nothing wrong with asking a question of an organisation that is in receipt of large amounts of public funding (i.e., recent redevelopment of Ravenhill).

Sorry Sin but you cant have it both ways. If Rory Best and Hendo were assumed to be aware of the reaction they would get by attending the trial then this politician (by the same standards) would be aware of the reaction she would get with that tweet. Put plainly shes used an ongiong r*** trial as a means to canvass support and get her name out there. Scum

I don't know anything about the MLA, but bearing in mind that she is a woman after reading those text messages between the accused, I'm not surprised that she is questioning the ethics and guidance given to Ulster Rugby.

by Standulstermen Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:30 pm

So if i go out and commit murder with a colleague my place of business can expect call from elected officials. Should Ulster have sat jackson and olding down to tell them sexual assault and such like is bad?

by Sin é Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:39 pm

Standulstermen wrote:So if i go out and commit murder with a colleague my place of business can expect call from elected officials. Should Ulster have sat jackson and olding down to tell them sexual assault and such like is bad?

Is your place of business a sporting organisation in receipt of public funds and does it present its members of staff as good role models?

Yes, Ulster Rugby should make sure that their players are good role models. Alex Ferguson used to police what his players were up to and frequently turned up at partys and nightclubs to pull his players out of them.

by SecretFly Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:42 pm

Sin é wrote:
Standulstermen wrote:So if i go out and commit murder with a colleague my place of business can expect call from elected officials. Should Ulster have sat jackson and olding down to tell them sexual assault and such like is bad?

Is your place of business a sporting organisation in receipt of public funds and does it present its members of staff as good role models?

Yes, Ulster Rugby should make sure that their players are good role models. Alex Ferguson used to police what his players were up to and frequently turned up at partys and nightclubs to pull his players out of them.

And who was there to make sure Alex left after them?

Whistle

by SecretFly Sun Feb 04, 2018 2:44 pm

...anyway sin...........................quit when you're ahead. If it's lifestyles and not crimes a sporting Organisation has to police.............................. well, every team has their 'did that really happen?' moments of nightlife/lifestyle excess.

by Standulstermen Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:41 pm

Sin é wrote:
Standulstermen wrote:So if i go out and commit murder with a colleague my place of business can expect call from elected officials. Should Ulster have sat jackson and olding down to tell them sexual assault and such like is bad?

Is your place of business a sporting organisation in receipt of public funds and does it present its members of staff as good role models?

Yes, Ulster Rugby should make sure that their players are good role models. Alex Ferguson used to police what his players were up to and frequently turned up at partys and nightclubs to pull his players out of them.

Fergie was the exception and not the norm. Ulster rugby are not responsible for the crimes their players commit. What absolute nonsense. All they ca do is act accordingly in the aftermath.

by marty2086 Sun Feb 04, 2018 3:50 pm

Sin é wrote:
The Great Aukster wrote:Paula who?

Oh I forgot, another opportunist politician trying to tap into populist opinion and sway a few votes her way. Hypocrite! The very party that is supposed to take an empathetic open-minded view has an advocate demonstrating the opposite.
How can she presume to comment on the motivation of any person present at the trial, let alone specifically pick Rory Best, the Ireland Captain on the eve of the Six Nations? Er... oh yeah!

The holier than thou Dublin press are obviously setting up the Ulster players should Ireland lose, and no doubt will be calling for Rory's head in that eventuality - but at least their level of reporting is consistent with the gutter it normally runs through. I have a lot of time for Naomi Long as a person, but if her party politicians are allowed to get away with this level of duplicity, perhaps she is not the person I thought she was.

Think you are jumping the gun there and putting words in her mouth. Here is what was posted by the MLA:

Paula Bradshaw MLA‏Verified account @PaulaJaneB
*r*** Trial*
I have written to @UlsterRugby to ask what guidance was provided to its team members in relation to attending the r*** trial, in Belfast Crown Court this week, to support the accused.

I will post its response ...

----
Nothing wrong with asking a question of an organisation that is in receipt of large amounts of public funding (i.e., recent redevelopment of Ravenhill).

There is something wrong with assuming people are there in support of and that therefore a need to question that support, it points to that being wrong

by marty2086 Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:02 pm

Sin é wrote:
SecretFly wrote:More presumptions though, sin.

One would assume that Rory, in the course of the year or so, has already been 'influenced' - by conversations about the charged players or indeed WITH charged players themselves. Perhaps it's not unreasonable to suggest that these players protested their innocence to certain team mates at some point?

So already the notion is reasonable that Rory heard one side of a story. It's not unreasonable then for him to seek out the other side FROM the source itself. So he attends court on the day the accuser is giving evidence.

One more presumption. Rory will obviously be asked to tell the truth in any Character witness report. So it doesn't necessarily follow that such evidence presented by him would naturally be completely supportive of charged players. He'll tell the truth as he sees it depending on the questions asked.

Rory wasn't at the party (as far as I know), so the only thing he will give is his opinion on the character of whichever player he was asked to be a character witness for. The reason why he was asked probably is because as Ulster & Ireland captain, his opinion will carry weight. Now if he says the player in question is a great lad, works hard, good team player etc. etc. even if innocent, what does that say about Ulster rugby ethics if the Ulster captain seems to turn a blind eye to the unacceptable behaviour of supposed role models?

Read the Eddie Halvey/Galwey story.

Sin be serious did you read the story? It presents a line from a grieving mother that says Halvey got off because of his status, yet the reporter says they aren't going to comment on the trial? Doesn't even point out that there was plenty of evidence supporting what Galwey said

How exactly is Rory supporting unacceptable behaviour if he gives a character statement?

by Sin é Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:46 pm

Standulstermen wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Standulstermen wrote:So if i go out and commit murder with a colleague my place of business can expect call from elected officials. Should Ulster have sat jackson and olding down to tell them sexual assault and such like is bad?

Is your place of business a sporting organisation in receipt of public funds and does it present its members of staff as good role models?

Yes, Ulster Rugby should make sure that their players are good role models. Alex Ferguson used to police what his players were up to and frequently turned up at partys and nightclubs to pull his players out of them.

Fergie was the exception and not the norm. Ulster rugby are not responsible for the crimes their players commit. What absolute nonsense. All they ca do is act accordingly in the aftermath.

After the Australian Lions Tour, Zebo & Murray got involved in some questionable moral carry-on. I've no doubt that the IRFU/Munster told them to cop on. Socially, Murray is as quiet as a mouse now and Zebo has settled down and is a complete family man (with 2 gorgeous kids). At the time that it was all over the internet, pretty sure that both Zebo & Murray were getting it in the ear for their behaviour (although perfectly legal).

I would say Paddy (who is a very funny bloke - some of his videos are very good) is very popular particularly with the young kids in Ravenhill. How do you think the parents of these kids (who buy the tickets) would rate Paddy as a role model now. How do you explain to a child why PJ is not playing this year?

by Sin é Sun Feb 04, 2018 4:54 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
SecretFly wrote:More presumptions though, sin.

One would assume that Rory, in the course of the year or so, has already been 'influenced' - by conversations about the charged players or indeed WITH charged players themselves. Perhaps it's not unreasonable to suggest that these players protested their innocence to certain team mates at some point?

So already the notion is reasonable that Rory heard one side of a story. It's not unreasonable then for him to seek out the other side FROM the source itself. So he attends court on the day the accuser is giving evidence.

One more presumption. Rory will obviously be asked to tell the truth in any Character witness report. So it doesn't necessarily follow that such evidence presented by him would naturally be completely supportive of charged players. He'll tell the truth as he sees it depending on the questions asked.

Rory wasn't at the party (as far as I know), so the only thing he will give is his opinion on the character of whichever player he was asked to be a character witness for. The reason why he was asked probably is because as Ulster & Ireland captain, his opinion will carry weight. Now if he says the player in question is a great lad, works hard, good team player etc. etc. even if innocent, what does that say about Ulster rugby ethics if the Ulster captain seems to turn a blind eye to the unacceptable behaviour of supposed role models?

Read the Eddie Halvey/Galwey story.

Sin be serious did you read the story? It presents a line from a grieving mother that says Halvey got off because of his status, yet the reporter says they aren't going to comment on the trial? Doesn't even point out that there was plenty of evidence supporting what Galwey said

How exactly is Rory supporting unacceptable behaviour if he gives a character statement?

My point of showing that article is that although Galwey did nothing wrong by saying that Halvey was a reformed character, it knocked the shine off Galwey's halo with even the Munster fans for what some saw as him condoning Halvey's behaviour. Galwey used be a Munster icon - he isn't that anymore. When at one stage he was brought into Munster in a mentoring capacity, some posters on Munsterfans were absolutely furious about it. He hardly gets a mention nowadays.

by marty2086 Sun Feb 04, 2018 5:24 pm

Sin é wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
SecretFly wrote:More presumptions though, sin.

One would assume that Rory, in the course of the year or so, has already been 'influenced' - by conversations about the charged players or indeed WITH charged players themselves. Perhaps it's not unreasonable to suggest that these players protested their innocence to certain team mates at some point?

So already the notion is reasonable that Rory heard one side of a story. It's not unreasonable then for him to seek out the other side FROM the source itself. So he attends court on the day the accuser is giving evidence.

One more presumption. Rory will obviously be asked to tell the truth in any Character witness report. So it doesn't necessarily follow that such evidence presented by him would naturally be completely supportive of charged players. He'll tell the truth as he sees it depending on the questions asked.

Rory wasn't at the party (as far as I know), so the only thing he will give is his opinion on the character of whichever player he was asked to be a character witness for. The reason why he was asked probably is because as Ulster & Ireland captain, his opinion will carry weight. Now if he says the player in question is a great lad, works hard, good team player etc. etc. even if innocent, what does that say about Ulster rugby ethics if the Ulster captain seems to turn a blind eye to the unacceptable behaviour of supposed role models?

Read the Eddie Halvey/Galwey story.

Sin be serious did you read the story? It presents a line from a grieving mother that says Halvey got off because of his status, yet the reporter says they aren't going to comment on the trial? Doesn't even point out that there was plenty of evidence supporting what Galwey said

How exactly is Rory supporting unacceptable behaviour if he gives a character statement?

My point of showing that article is that although Galwey did nothing wrong by saying that Halvey was a reformed character, it knocked the shine off Galwey's halo with even the Munster fans for what some saw as him condoning Halvey's behaviour. Galwey used be a Munster icon - he isn't that anymore. When at one stage he was brought into Munster in a mentoring capacity, some posters on Munsterfans were absolutely furious about it. He hardly gets a mention nowadays.

Well some people are idiots as has been shown with the behaviour of a large number in recent days, many of whom have very little to say today as well and who's social media activity has been non existent compared to the righteous indignation they showed prior to Rorys comments

by geoff999rugby Sun Feb 04, 2018 11:25 pm

Sin é wrote:
SecretFly wrote:More presumptions though, sin.

One would assume that Rory, in the course of the year or so, has already been 'influenced' - by conversations about the charged players or indeed WITH charged players themselves. Perhaps it's not unreasonable to suggest that these players protested their innocence to certain team mates at some point?

So already the notion is reasonable that Rory heard one side of a story. It's not unreasonable then for him to seek out the other side FROM the source itself. So he attends court on the day the accuser is giving evidence.

One more presumption. Rory will obviously be asked to tell the truth in any Character witness report. So it doesn't necessarily follow that such evidence presented by him would naturally be completely supportive of charged players. He'll tell the truth as he sees it depending on the questions asked.

Rory wasn't at the party (as far as I know), so the only thing he will give is his opinion on the character of whichever player he was asked to be a character witness for. The reason why he was asked probably is because as Ulster & Ireland captain, his opinion will carry weight. Now if he says the player in question is a great lad, works hard, good team player etc. etc. even if innocent, what does that say about Ulster rugby ethics if the Ulster captain seems to turn a blind eye to the unacceptable behaviour of supposed role models?

Read the Eddie Halvey/Galwey story.

No he wasn't at the party.
So he will be asked questions about the character of one or both of the players.
Providing he answers truthfully what else do you expect him to do.
Nothing to do with turning a blind eye - you cant turn a blind eye to something you have no awareness off
Truthful answers will say absolutely nothing about Ulster rugby ethics - that is just sh!t stirring

by marty2086 Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:35 pm

The Judge in r*** trial involving two Ulster Rugby players tells the jury the “only” reason Ireland Captain Rory Best was “in this courtroom last week was because he was directed by senior counsel to be here”.

by Standulstermen Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:50 pm

Apologies to Rory welcome.

by Don Alfonso Mon Feb 05, 2018 12:58 pm

Deafening silence.

by Don Alfonso Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:05 pm

No opportunity to be shrill and sanctimonious about Ulster Rugby = no interest in discussion.

For some.

by marty2086 Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:13 pm

Searching Rorys name on Twitter really is depressing

by SecretFly Mon Feb 05, 2018 1:58 pm

I apologise to Rory................

I don't know why and I'm a whole hour late.... but that's my bit out of the way. Cool

by Sin é Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:03 pm

Standulstermen wrote:Apologies to Rory welcome.

For what?

by marty2086 Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:11 pm

Sin é wrote:
Standulstermen wrote:Apologies to Rory welcome.

For what?

Well suggesting he was there to support the accused and had no right to be there or from those who accused him of trying to intimidate a young woman or the other crap that was posted about him here and across social media

by Sin é Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:24 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Standulstermen wrote:Apologies to Rory welcome.

For what?

Well suggesting he was there to support the accused and had no right to be there or from those who accused him of trying to intimidate a young woman or the other crap that was posted about him here and across social media

We haven't been told whose counsel told him to attend or why he would have given that advice. The judge has pointed out to the jury that (in case it went against the defendants I assume) that Rory wasn't there to support the lads bearing in mind what the woman involved said in her text messages about 'going up against Ulster rugby'.

I still think that Rory (who I think is a good and decent person) was ill advised to attend the trial and in so doing has done no favours for the defendants or Ulster/Irish rugby.

I think the whole system is unfair though - Olding and Jackson (& rest of those involved) should not have been named and the whole proceedings should have taken place behind closed doors.

by marty2086 Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:27 pm

Sin é wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Standulstermen wrote:Apologies to Rory welcome.

For what?

Well suggesting he was there to support the accused and had no right to be there or from those who accused him of trying to intimidate a young woman or the other crap that was posted about him here and across social media

We haven't been told whose counsel told him to attend or why he would have given that advice. The judge has pointed out to the jury that (in case it went against the defendants I assume) that Rory wasn't there to support the lads bearing in mind what the woman involved said in her text messages about 'going up against Ulster rugby'.

I still think that Rory (who I think is a good and decent person) was ill advised to attend the trial and in so doing has done no favours for the defendants or Ulster/Irish rugby.

I think the whole system is unfair though - Olding and Jackson (& rest of those involved) should not have been named and the whole proceedings should have taken place behind closed doors.

Why? That means giving them favourable treatment

Doesn't matter who told him to attend but if he was unsure of whether to stand up for one of them, telling him to hear both sides isn't exactly a bad idea

by Sin é Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:35 pm

marty2086 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
marty2086 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
Standulstermen wrote:Apologies to Rory welcome.

For what?

Well suggesting he was there to support the accused and had no right to be there or from those who accused him of trying to intimidate a young woman or the other crap that was posted about him here and across social media

We haven't been told whose counsel told him to attend or why he would have given that advice. The judge has pointed out to the jury that (in case it went against the defendants I assume) that Rory wasn't there to support the lads bearing in mind what the woman involved said in her text messages about 'going up against Ulster rugby'.

I still think that Rory (who I think is a good and decent person) was ill advised to attend the trial and in so doing has done no favours for the defendants or Ulster/Irish rugby.

I think the whole system is unfair though - Olding and Jackson (& rest of those involved) should not have been named and the whole proceedings should have taken place behind closed doors.

Why? That means giving them favourable treatment

Doesn't matter who told him to attend but if he was unsure of whether to stand up for one of them, telling him to hear both sides isn't exactly a bad idea

Of course it matters who told him to attend and why - if it was the defendent's counsel it could have been they thought they would get an edge by having the Ulster / Ireland captain there which might influence the jury in their decision making.

If it was the prosecutor's counsel, Rory attending and then declining to give a character reference would work in their favour.

Depending on what Rory decides could influence the Jury and that isn't right.

by SecretFly Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:41 pm

???? That's a character witness, Sin.

His very role (chosen for him not by him) is to hopefully 'influence' the jury. But he's still held to court conditions. Still has to be honest. Still is cross examined as far as I know. So it's never just "I am John Smith and I hereby confirm that defendant John Doe is a likeable lad and a decent old skin mostly...except when he beats me at cards."

by Don Alfonso Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:11 pm

So - character witnesses are all very well and good but mustn't influence anything?

<Scratches head>

So the point in them is....?

by Don Alfonso Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:25 pm

I suppose we can all agree, first and foremost, that Rory is in the wrong somehow,about something.

So as the facts change, we can just go back and change what we're outraged about retroactively, to reflect what we've learnt.

This is where all our legal qualifications and hours spent working in the Northern Irish judicial system really come into their own.

by SecretFly Mon Feb 05, 2018 4:41 pm

Shut it! You just reminded me of a perfect solution to the debacle. A Table. A Table - preferably a round table always solves all problems in Northern Ireland.

by Sin é Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:00 pm

Don Alfonso wrote:So - character witnesses are all very well and good but mustn't influence anything?

<Scratches head>

So the point in them is....?

I don't think character references should influence the jury. A verdict should be based on fact, not opinion (particularly if its the opinion of a person of high profile).

In the Tom Humphreys child molesting case, Donal Og Cusack and David Walsh had given character references to Humphreys which they were castigated for. Donal Og (Humphreys had written his biography) ended up resigning from his board position on Sport Island and as assistant coach to the Clare hurlers.

By the way, character witness in ROI is only used at the sentencing stage. Don't know if the same applies in British law courts.

by neilthom7 Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:04 pm

Still trying to slate Rory for this at this stage is just ridiculous, the judge has said the only reason he was there was because he was instructed to be by council.

What is Rory meant to do? A fully qualified member of the bar is telling him he should attend. Rory as well as being the Ireland captain is a normal person, like most of us he probably has very little knowledge of trials or the legal system and if a fully qualified specialist person is telling him he needs to attend then why would he not do so?
You can debate the ethics of that person all you want or who they were or what their intentions were but to be slandering Rory still is just moronic

by SecretFly Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:10 pm

Sin é wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:So - character witnesses are all very well and good but mustn't influence anything?

<Scratches head>

So the point in them is....?

I don't think character references should influence the jury. A verdict should be based on fact, not opinion (particularly if its the opinion of a person of high profile).

In the Tom Humphreys child molesting case, Donal Og Cusack and David Walsh had given character references to Humphreys which they were castigated for. Donal Og (Humphreys had written his biography) ended up resigning from his board position on Sport Island and as assistant coach to the Clare hurlers.

By the way, character witness in ROI is only used at the sentencing stage. Don't know if the same applies in British law courts.

Influence the degree of sentencing.... sorry Sin, you're right, they don't influence the jury but are used to perhaps lessen a sentence. So they are still used to influence an outcome. They have no other purpose other than to influence.

Plus...I don't like that witch hunt/ boycotting culture or philosophy - actually I despise it. A character witness is not trying to change the nature of the offence if proven in court, only to tell the court what their impressions are. Why should a witness be ostracised because they carry out a duty to a court that legally allows 'character witnesses'? Surely, if anything or one is to blame, it's the system that sanctions 'character witnesses'?

by rapidsnowman Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:20 pm

marty2086 wrote:Well suggesting he was there to support the accused and had no right to be there or from those who accused him of trying to intimidate a young woman or the other crap that was posted about him here and across social media

If it is me you have in mind.

I suggested the presence of the Ulster players would look like they were there to support the accused and questioned the wisdom of that in light of the young lady's suggestion that she would be up against Ulster Rugby.

I did not for one second believe they were there to intimidate her.

You will also see in my posts that I have no knowledge of why they were there, but was pointing out how it would be perceived at large.
And unfortunately that is exactly how many choose to perceive it.

by SecretFly Mon Feb 05, 2018 5:33 pm

Did anyone read the lovely interview with Rory from just a little while back - can't make out the exact time - but recent?

https://amp.independent.ie/sport/rugby/best-of-both-worlds-how-the-irish-rugby-captain-is-happiest-at-home-on-the-farm-36551824.html

If you read that....is that truly the kind of man that would allow himself to be used in the intimidation of a person that has made such serious accusations? Is Rory that kind of man? Rapid reasonably states 'nope', he never believed Rory was there to intimidate.
Well, would he even allow himself to go 'represent' Ulster Rugby and show the young lady that the accused had a lot of power and persuasion on their side. Would he really have allowed himself, the mere Ulster captain, to become the menacing face of an aggressive organisation - this man?

by Sin é Mon Feb 05, 2018 11:00 pm

Interesting stuff on Prime Time tonight about how the Irish legal system works when it comes to sexual trials (child molestation, r***, incest etc). No one is named and the public are not allowed into the courts for the trials. Its up to the judge (in consultation with the victim) to decide if they want the details to be made public after the verdict is reached.

by Pot Hale Tue Feb 06, 2018 12:02 am

Rory Best did not want to be in court. He complied with the instruction from counsel for prosecution so that he could hear testimony first hand on the day from the alleged victim.

“The reason I was there, it's on the record I've been called as a character witness. I was advised it was important to attend, so I got both sides of the story.”

Defence counsel raised the largely negative media reporting of his attendance with the judge because they knew his appearance would not do their clients any favours for him to appear and as it transpired it didn’t.

by geoff999rugby Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:01 am

Judge Patricia Smyth also told the jury of nine men and three women that the “the only reason he was in court was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel”.

The judge said to the jury they may “have been aware of press coverage about the attendance at this trial of Mr Rory Best” while adding that it may have been “hard” for them not to be aware of this coverage

In a nut shell the press and our local politicians knew why he attended but were more interested in sh!t stirring than the truth.
Equally, rather than question their coverage, and comments, a depressingly high percentage of so called supporters took them at face value. nope

by marty2086 Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:11 am

Sin é wrote:
Don Alfonso wrote:So - character witnesses are all very well and good but mustn't influence anything?

<Scratches head>

So the point in them is....?

I don't think character references should influence the jury. A verdict should be based on fact, not opinion (particularly if its the opinion of a person of high profile).

In the Tom Humphreys child molesting case, Donal Og Cusack and David Walsh had given character references to Humphreys which they were castigated for. Donal Og (Humphreys had written his biography) ended up resigning from his board position on Sport Island and as assistant coach to the Clare hurlers.

By the way, character witness in ROI is only used at the sentencing stage. Don't know if the same applies in British law courts.

A persons character is on trial as much as anything so character references are important

by marty2086 Tue Feb 06, 2018 9:16 am

geoff999rugby wrote:Judge Patricia Smyth also told the jury of nine men and three women that the “the only reason he was in court was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel”.

The judge said to the jury they may “have been aware of press coverage about the attendance at this trial of Mr Rory Best” while adding that it may have been “hard” for them not to be aware of this coverage

In a nut shell the press and our local politicians knew why he attended but were more interested in sh!t stirring than the truth.
Equally, rather than question their coverage, and comments, a depressingly high percentage of so called supporters took them at face value.

Paula Bradshaw was challenged on Facebook about it, she quite arrogantly told the guy who challenged her that he was ignorant of the facts and that as Ireland captain it was right to ask the question and organisations routinely issue guidelines to contracted staff about these kind of things to avoid PR problems.

I've asked her why if it was his position as Ireland captain that made it relevant and he was on Ireland duty, why she was writing to Ulster. Also pointed out he's not contracted to Ulster, still awaiting a reply

by Pete330v2 Tue Feb 06, 2018 10:08 am

I always knew that any players attending the court would attract the negative attention of the gutter press, hungry to stir up ill feeling which is all they're actually average at. It's gives them a little of the sensationalism they crave but can never quite get due mainly to their own inadequacies rather than those of others.
The fact that it also attracted the attentions of a so called 'politician' is surprising and places them lower in the pecking order than the journalists IMO. If it weren't for the fact our democratically elected representatives have absolutely sod all to do then perhaps things would be different.
All this is why I thought it was wiser for Ulster Rugby to stay well clear of the proceedings but I should have known better than to doubt Rory's judgement on the issue.

by Don Alfonso Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:06 pm

So. Game on Friday.

by marty2086 Tue Feb 06, 2018 1:38 pm

Kings coach Dean Davids won't be in charge for the game, had to stay in SA. Hopefully nothing too serious

Ulster Rugby 2017-18 - Page 16 Dvrohh10

by Sponsored content