Ulster - Appropriate Way Forward

First topic message reminder :

What is the appropriate way forward for Ulster?

Bring Jackson and Olding Back - They were found not guilt and have been punished far enough through reputational damage and a year's suspension

Look to move Olding and Jackson on for a period of time before bringing them back in a couple of seasons - They have brought damage to the Ulster brand and need to mature. This has to be done outside the comfort of Belfast

Terminate/buyout contracts and banish them - They crossed a line too far and they will never play for Ulster again

I am really surprised there has been such venom, full page adds, calls to end their careers, when there are non guilty

Ok, if it was lifestyle, not being within Ulster Rugby ethics, you have to consider that maybe spit roasts and threesomes is their sexual preference and cannot be discriminated against any more than homosexuality can be. May not be what we would consider moral, but the same was said about homosexuality not that long ago.

If it was the comments on Whattapp these were private comments, and I am sure if you went though every persons on the forum, or listened to what was said in private everyone has said something that would offend someone somewhere. I bet a premier league footballers would cause meltdown.

What they have done is shown a lack of respect to woman, which is disappointing but that shouldn't be career ending.
It may not be the values we wish in rugby, but its not illegal, like Wilson drink driving, and he was given a second chance.
Or for a rugby values is is worse than being a banned drugs cheat, yet Carlo Del Fava got a second chance.

Is a lack of respect for woman, in a private chat, worse than breaking the law or worse than being a banned drugs cheat?

Its an over reaction, and while what they said is deplorable, it falls in with the level of Bastareaud or Folua, Joe Marler.
Deplorable, punishable and regrettable, but not career ending.

How can you be surprised once you acknowledge some people think they did r*** her though. Once you acknowledge that point you can certainly understand a range of reactions.

Christ it's like having a debate with Sin.

Just answer a point. Don't understand why anyone could possibly confused as to why people are protesting.

No 7.5. I am surprised though. There’s a protocol for suspected criminality. It’s called arrest and fair trial. You can’t ask for anything more.
If you object to the way trials of this kind are operated, then take your protests to stormont not kingspan.
Folk are hiding behind the role model argument when in reality what they are hoping to achieve is to inflict some sort of punishment or seek justice that the court in their eyes failed to do.
These folk don’t accept the court findings and want the boys punished in another way.
It’s not unlike having PSNI tell you there’s not enough evidence against a suspected drug dealer to convict, and instead you go have a word with your local hard men...

The systems are in place, they need to be respected for what they are. If the systems can be improved, fair enough, but that’s not the boys fault and nor does it imply their guilt.

Take a protest where it's going to get noticed. Personally I think if enough people kick up a fuss it will focus people's minds who are I'm power on what they're doing. And I agree that some will be hoping to seek justice that they view the court as bot providing

No 7&1/2 wrote:Just answer a point. Don't understand why anyone could possibly confused as to why people are protesting.

Equally though you could ask these same people to go through the FACTS that have been reported and ask how they arrive at that conclusion. Irrespective of how people feel about the whatsapps how someone can arrive at the conclusion based on what we know of the case is baffling and strikes of emotive rather than rational thought. No rational thought leads to irrational debate

If it's not already, should it not be a crime to unequivocally declare somebody as guilty of a criminal act.

In this day and age where nearly anything is considered hate speech, how can it be acceptable to say 'he is a r***ist' both in cases where there has been no trial, awaiting trial and in cases of not guilty verdicts.

I think it's fine to say 'I think he did it', but not so OK with people saying he for sure did.

I think THAT should be a crime. I mean its defamatory and slanderous for starters.

No 7&1/2 wrote:How can you be surprised once you acknowledge some people think they did r*** her though.  Once you acknowledge that point you can certainly understand a range of reactions.

Thats the probem, they are making that judgement on the fact there was an allegation because they don't have the full facts and don't care. They want action taken without due process, it's crazy

Well there we are then call the protesters crazy with no rational thought. Not sure sure that'll be the best way forward for ulster mind!

And bowing to protests just because you don't want to upset the perpetually outraged will do the trick?

See what I mean? It's like trying to have a rational debate with the protestors who despise the justice system. Blind and deaf.

I think you have to acknowledge the anger felt around it and have open and clear communication to try and dissipate it. Pete you're just ticking your head in the sand and dismissing. You're branding people as irrational with little argument other than they wasn't enough proof to convict so they shouldn't protest. You're welcome to take that view bit I don't think it will stop people protesting more make them take an entrenched position themselves.

Indeed. Clive had it spot on. There are things to potentially be said about how we try cases like this but for all their faults im not sure Shane Logan or Bryn Cunningham are the men to make the change. Protest is fine. Protest in the correct place though

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think you have to acknowledge the anger felt around it and have open and clear communication to try and dissipate it. Pete you're just ticking your head in the sand and dismissing. You're branding people as irrational with little argument other than they wasn't enough proof to convict so they shouldn't protest. You're welcome to take that view bit I don't think it will stop people protesting more make them take an entrenched position themselves.

Except Ulster were clear, there's going to be a review but those outside don't care they want people sacked without all the facts and for doing nothing illegal

That's what you're failing to grasp

I grasp it ok I think marty. What I don't think is he best way forward though I'd to label them crazy feminazis etc but try to calm that situation rather than inflame it with a brick wall response. I do get where most of you are coming from bar the odd comment. In regard to correct places to protest. Well its getting a lot of coverage generally so I'd say it's he perfect place to protest. Unfortunately for ulster it just happens to be placing them in a bad situation.

You're failing to grasp the reality instead of what you'd like to believe the situation is. It's got damn all to do with heads in the sand, more to do with banging heads against a brick wall. Nothing, I repeat nothing will satisfy these half wits other than players being sacked. They're asking for nothing less and when this is all over they'll begin work on what to be offended by next. Acknowledging these people only makes them think they're empowered. Ulster do not need to acknowledge them but need to continue the correct course they're on with the IRFU. It has nothing to do with those who'll have forgotten all this in a few weeks.

And again with dismissing people as half wits. You have to acknowledge them even if you personally don't agree.

Can i just ask then is the point you're making that we should respect their protest irrespective of the rational (or lack thereof) behind it

I think it's very rational personally. My point is or was asim slightly losing the will to live over this is....The best way for ulster to approach this is to acknowledge this, meet with them. Be seen to be doing something. Foe what it's worth I think ulster and jackson so far have done well.

On your last sentence. It depends who them are. I wouldnt meet with the mob with placards necessarily but certainly theres bound to be some womans group wherein they could meet. That said it would take place after the review and only really if they decided to retain the guys

The rationale of those baying is that some miscarriage of justice has transpired btw.

No 7&1/2 wrote:And again with dismissing people as half wits. You have to acknowledge them even if you personally don't agree.

You are right in the sense that a calm response is required
However it is difficult when you get claims, as follows, on social media:

- The Irish judicial system has let the down. NO The case was heard in the UK not Ireland
- 4 Ulster rugby player raped her. NO the charge was against two players and the others were not rugby players and were not charged with r***
- She went back alone with the 4 men. NO There were three other women present

Also it would appear Dara Florence has been threatened on social media as a traitor to the sisterhood

Regarding the Belfast Telegraph advert as far I can ascertain no members of the URSC subscribed.
The claim was made the money came from Ulster supporters - Id be confident that is a lie.
Also they said the money would continue to be welcome even when the £2000 was reached and the surplus would go to an support group.
As soon as the total was obtained it was closed down. That is dishonest as many may well have contributed in the expectation money would go to a support group.

There is an irrationality in the above which makes it impossible to have a calm considered debate

Not surprised, in fact I predicted Dara Florence would receive abuse.

Had an interesting conversation with someone at the club on Friday night.

During the trial it was his opinion the lads probably would have to go.
Following the social media tirade there seems to be a groundswell of opinion that Ulster/IRFU cannot be seen to be giving in to
these tactics and that an appropriate statement will come out but the bottom line being they can stay if they want to.
As I said early my prediction will be after our last home game so no change of any protest at a match and over the summer it will die a death.

Very interesting

What do the protesters want?

They obviously consider Jackson and Olding guilty, so do they think forcing them out of their job is a fitting punishment for a serious crime - doesn't seem very rational.

geoff999rugby wrote:
Only confirms my suspicion, I voiced before; if it hadn't been rugby players it would never have got to court, the evidence just wasn't there.
This doesn't mean I approve, in any way, how the palyers conducted themselves (just in case Sin e is watching !)

Pinched from elsewhere in answer to similar statement:


The senior investigating officer in the case, Det Ch Insp Zoe McKee, said she had spoken to the complainant following the verdicts: "Understandably, she is upset and disappointed with the outcome."

She said the case was "thoroughly and robustly investigated. We pursued all lines of investigative inquiry, we brought all of the evidence together, we worked in close collaboration with the Public Prosecution Service from the start".

Source: BBC News


Statement from the assistant director of the PPS's serious crime unit, who stated that:

In a statement, Marianne O'Kane, assistant director of the PPS's serious crime unit, said: "The evidence received in this case was subjected to a very thorough and careful examination by a team of experienced lawyers including senior counsel, before we concluded that the test for prosecution was met, in line with our code for prosecutors.

"This meant that there was both sufficient evidence to provide a reasonable prospect of conviction and it was in the public interest to prosecute.

"This case was properly brought before the courts and overcame a number of legal challenges. It was ultimately right that the matter was placed before a jury to make their determination."

Source: BBC News

On Folou - personally, I think he can have these beliefs (many people have similar ones), but he should keep them to himself.

Nigel Owens take on it:

''When you say first of all that you respect everybody and their different views and opinions, then you can’t mean that if you are saying gay people should go to hell because of who they are.

"I’ve accepted who I am, but it can affect young people going through those difficult times, believe me, as years ago I was one of them.

"If you really are a Christian then surely you should respect people who are different to who you are."

The Great Aukster wrote:What do the protesters want?

They obviously consider Jackson and Olding guilty, so do they think forcing them out of their job is a fitting punishment for a serious crime - doesn't seem very rational.

The issue is not the r*** trial, what the problem is their disrespectful attitude to women. Going on a four day drinking binge is hardly the best way to represent the values of Ulster rugby.  

They were responsible for Ulster Rugby, IRFU and the sport of rugby being the headline item on news reports on the island of Ireland for 9 weeks for all the wrong reasons. I can't see any sponsor wanting them to have their logo emblazoned across their chest, particular companies like Vodafone and Bank of Ireland whose customer base would be 50% women.

Pete330v2 wrote:Speaking of fools, I see Anna Nolan has run a Gofundme page to raise funds for an add in the Belfast Telegragh calling for PJ and SO to never represent Ulster or Ireland again. She raised the necessary £2000 with a little spare change left over which I'm sure she'll donate to some LGBT charity. The world is doomed when people like this exist.

You've got the wrong Anna Nolan there.

The Anna Nolan who bought the ad in the Bel Tel is Director of The Syria Campaign (according to their own bio - The Syria Campaign mobilises people around the world to help stop the violence and accelerate progress towards a peaceful and democratic future for Syria).

No 7&1/2 wrote:I agree with that ulster.

Separate marty as you want to talk on them rather than ulster. Personally i would be calling on folou to be sacked.

And there we have it, the moral and righteous 7 1/2, is in fact a bigot by the definition of the word. You are intolerant of his beliefs, and feel he should have is life ruined over them. Maybe time to get off moral mountain. Should I call your employer and tell them that you were intolerant of people's religious beliefs on a rugby forum, I think you getting sacked is an appropriate punishment. These are your standards.

I wonder if you would say the same if he were Muslim, and simply expressing his faith?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I think you have to acknowledge the anger felt around it and have open and clear communication to try and dissipate it. Pete you're just ticking your head in the sand and dismissing. You're branding people as irrational with little argument other than they wasn't enough proof to convict so they shouldn't protest. You're welcome to take that view bit I don't think it will stop people protesting more make them take an entrenched position themselves.

Wow, this has to be some of the most ignorant tripe dressed as an insightful point I have ever seen.

So you are saying that it is acceptable to protest the verdict of the court and jury a fair trial when you know that they were privy to information you don't have. The mind boggles.

Sin é wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:What do the protesters want?

They obviously consider Jackson and Olding guilty, so do they think forcing them out of their job is a fitting punishment for a serious crime - doesn't seem very rational.

The issue is not the r*** trial, what the problem is their disrespectful attitude to women. Going on a four day drinking binge is hardly the best way to represent the values of Ulster rugby.  

They were responsible for Ulster Rugby, IRFU and the sport of rugby being the headline item on news reports on the island of Ireland for 9 weeks for all the wrong reasons. I can't see any sponsor wanting them to have their logo emblazoned across their chest, particular companies like Vodafone and Bank of Ireland whose customer base would be 50% women.

White knight Sine coming to save the day for the poor womans. For they could not possibly survive without you purging society of mean words. They are delicate petals, and cannot handle the slings and arrows of mean words. Thank god you are here to protect them, you are far more moral and virtuous than I.

I don't mind if you ring my employer goon. If folou wants to be a hypocrite while in a public position like he has I'd personally want him removed. There's a difference in respect if people's beliefs and allowing them to speak tripe without comeback.

And yes one of the key things in society is big allowed to demonstrate and protest.

Theres a change.org petition for anyone wanting the lads reinstated. Im not going to say anything on the above posts other than it should keep the discussion moving nicely ................

I'm sure you don't mind, but now what if 10,000 people ring them? If there is a trending # on twitter, if there are calls to boycott them?

How is Folou a hypocrite?

So you want a man to be "removed" for wrongthink, so tolerant. Sounds quite ominous in fact.

What is the difference between "tripe" and "beliefs", clearly you see a difference in them, could you explain what that is? I just to understand your standards. Is Folou's homosexuals to hell opinion tripe or a belief? Is accepting the verdict of a fair trial tripe or a belief?

For the record, I have no issue with people saying "I disagree and here's why" to Folou or to people who call women sluts. The issue I have is that your ilk want them punished, and quite harshly at that. You want them to lose their livelihoods, you want to stop them from providing for their families and ruining their lives.

Who is saying they shouldn't have the right to protest? We are saying their reasons are irrational and without facts. You are defending the protest despite this, we are pointing this out to you but clearly your head is in the sand, to use your terminology. Their right to protest has never been discussed, this is deflection.

Sin é wrote:On Folou - personally, I think he can have these beliefs (many people have similar ones), but he should keep them to himself.

No free speech for you. You have the wrong opinions!!

Sin é wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Speaking of fools, I see Anna Nolan has run a Gofundme page to raise funds for an add in the Belfast Telegragh calling for PJ and SO to never represent Ulster or Ireland again. She raised the necessary £2000 with a little spare change left over which I'm sure she'll donate to some LGBT charity. The world is doomed when people like this exist.

You've got the wrong Anna Nolan there.

The Anna Nolan who bought the ad in the Bel Tel is Director of The Syria Campaign (according to their own bio - The Syria Campaign mobilises people around the world to help stop the violence and accelerate progress towards a peaceful and democratic future for Syria).

I can blame some daily rag for reporting the wrong 'campaigner'.
It matters not a jot though, someone that hasn't expressed any interest in whether Ulster Rugby exists or not "campaigning" to remove 3 Ulster players. A typical habitual campaigner who'll pick up on anything they can act offended by.
Only until the next faux campaign comes along, she should stick to worrying about Syria to be honest as her advert has achieved absolutely nothing.

Standulstermen wrote:Theres a change.org petition for anyone wanting the lads reinstated. Im not going to say anything on the above posts other than  it should keep the discussion moving nicely ................

These petitions are a waste of time and rightfully so. The IRFU should not more pay heed to this than the advert in the Bel Tel.

The problem that Folou creates is that he has passed judgement on a whole group of people and decided that there is something wrong with them and they need to be punished (go to hell).

He is a sportman, not god. Rugby Union has signed up to respect and inclusivity. How does a gay rugby player fit into the same team as Folou bearing in mind he has no tolerance for them and wants them punished for being gay?

the-goon wrote:

Sin é wrote:On Folou - personally, I think he can have these beliefs (many people have similar ones), but he should keep them to himself.

No free speech for you. You have the wrong opinions!!

Was he not asked about his belief regarding gay people? Therefore was he not entitled to give an honest answer.
the guy can't help being brainwashed to believe in hell let alone who's going there.

the-goon wrote:

Sin é wrote:On Folou - personally, I think he can have these beliefs (many people have similar ones), but he should keep them to himself.

No free speech for you. You have the wrong opinions!!

Not when its hate speech.

Sin é wrote:

the-goon wrote:

Sin é wrote:On Folou - personally, I think he can have these beliefs (many people have similar ones), but he should keep them to himself.

No free speech for you. You have the wrong opinions!!

Not when its hate speech.

And there we have it. You are against the principle of free speech. You are not liberal or tolerant or enlightened in any way.

Who decides what is hate speech, sure Sine of course, you are wannabee tyrant.

So Sine, is Islam hate speech? The koran is very homophobic and very demeaning to women, so naturally I assume you want it banned correct? And what should we do with people who follow that book?

Folou has his right to his opinion goon. He doesn't have the right t avoid consequences for making it public. Last time I checked folou is dying his hair. Getting tattoos. I bet he's wearing mixed fibres as well the naughty boy.

the-goon wrote:

Sin é wrote:

the-goon wrote:

Sin é wrote:On Folou - personally, I think he can have these beliefs (many people have similar ones), but he should keep them to himself.

No free speech for you. You have the wrong opinions!!

Not when its hate speech.

And there we have it. You are against the principle of free speech. You are not liberal or tolerant or enlightened in any way.

Who decides what is hate speech, sure Sine of course, you are wannabee tyrant.

So Sine, is Islam hate speech? The koran is very homophobic and very demeaning to women, so naturally I assume you want it banned correct? And what should we do with people who follow that book?

Maybe you need to understand what hate speech is:

Hate speech is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation, disability, or gender.  The law of some countries describes hate speech as speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display that incites violence or prejudicial action against a protected group or individual on the basis of their membership of the group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected group, or individual on the basis of their membership of the group. The law may identify a protected group by certain characteristics. ] In some countries, hate speech is not a legal term and in some it is constitutionally protected.

In Australia, they have laws about this. In the State of Victoria for instance, this is what their law is:

On 1 January 2002, Victoria put into effect its Racial and Religious Tolerance Act 2001 which makes religious vilification as well as racial vilification unlawful. Section 8(1) of the Act states:

       A person must not, on the ground of the religious belief or activity of another person or class of persons, engage in conduct that incites hatred against, serious contempt for, or revulsion or severe ridicule of, that other person or class of persons.
       Note: "engage in conduct" includes use of the internet or e-mail to publish or transmit statements or other material.

As for the Koran, I haven't read it, but from what I know from general reading that the Koran teaches respect for everyone.

Part of the reason I tried to side step homophobic abuse on a thread on what ulster should do next. Side track away from the topic.

Pete330v2 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Speaking of fools, I see Anna Nolan has run a Gofundme page to raise funds for an add in the Belfast Telegragh calling for PJ and SO to never represent Ulster or Ireland again. She raised the necessary £2000 with a little spare change left over which I'm sure she'll donate to some LGBT charity. The world is doomed when people like this exist.

You've got the wrong Anna Nolan there.

The Anna Nolan who bought the ad in the Bel Tel is Director of The Syria Campaign (according to their own bio - The Syria Campaign mobilises people around the world to help stop the violence and accelerate progress towards a peaceful and democratic future for Syria).

I can blame some daily rag for reporting the wrong 'campaigner'.
It matters not a jot though, someone that hasn't expressed any interest in whether Ulster Rugby exists or not "campaigning" to remove 3 Ulster players. A typical habitual campaigner who'll pick up on anything they can act offended by.
Only until the next faux campaign comes along, she should stick to worrying about Syria to be honest as her advert has achieved absolutely nothing.

Well maybe you should review where you get your information from then and maybe stick to more reputable news resources.

Sin é wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Speaking of fools, I see Anna Nolan has run a Gofundme page to raise funds for an add in the Belfast Telegragh calling for PJ and SO to never represent Ulster or Ireland again. She raised the necessary £2000 with a little spare change left over which I'm sure she'll donate to some LGBT charity. The world is doomed when people like this exist.

You've got the wrong Anna Nolan there.

The Anna Nolan who bought the ad in the Bel Tel is Director of The Syria Campaign (according to their own bio - The Syria Campaign mobilises people around the world to help stop the violence and accelerate progress towards a peaceful and democratic future for Syria).

I can blame some daily rag for reporting the wrong 'campaigner'.
It matters not a jot though, someone that hasn't expressed any interest in whether Ulster Rugby exists or not "campaigning" to remove 3 Ulster players. A typical habitual campaigner who'll pick up on anything they can act offended by.
Only until the next faux campaign comes along, she should stick to worrying about Syria to be honest as her advert has achieved absolutely nothing.

Well maybe you should review where you get your information from then and maybe stick to more reputable news resources.

It was the Irish Times.

Sine, I fully understand the concept of hate speech. And reading the definition you provided, everyone should be concerned about 2 issues.
1. Who decides what speech is prejudicial, what authority do they act upon, and what measures are in place to stop abuse of this considerable power.
2. The concept of protected groups, does this mean that certain people have more rights than others? Protected vs presumably un-protected.

To bring this back to the topic at hand, I am showing that you (Sine and 7 1/2) have no interest in principles or facts. You act based purely on selective emotional outrage, and not only that, what you consider to an appropriate punishment is the ruining of their lives. I feel offended at X, therefore that person should never work again.

In a society and legal system based on universal principles, reason and fact, people who do not use these foundations for their opinion should not be given credibility nor the power to exercise them (but they are allowed to have their opinions).

Pete330v2 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:Speaking of fools, I see Anna Nolan has run a Gofundme page to raise funds for an add in the Belfast Telegragh calling for PJ and SO to never represent Ulster or Ireland again. She raised the necessary £2000 with a little spare change left over which I'm sure she'll donate to some LGBT charity. The world is doomed when people like this exist.

You've got the wrong Anna Nolan there.

The Anna Nolan who bought the ad in the Bel Tel is Director of The Syria Campaign (according to their own bio - The Syria Campaign mobilises people around the world to help stop the violence and accelerate progress towards a peaceful and democratic future for Syria).

I can blame some daily rag for reporting the wrong 'campaigner'.
It matters not a jot though, someone that hasn't expressed any interest in whether Ulster Rugby exists or not "campaigning" to remove 3 Ulster players. A typical habitual campaigner who'll pick up on anything they can act offended by.
Only until the next faux campaign comes along, she should stick to worrying about Syria to be honest as her advert has achieved absolutely nothing.

Well maybe you should review where you get your information from then and maybe stick to more reputable news resources.

It was the Irish Times.

Funny, I read it in the Irish Times as well. The only reference to Anna Nolan is this:

One of those who set up the crowdfunding campaign to publish the ad, Anna Nolan, said it exceeded its €2,000 target within 36 hours.

Nowhere did it say that it was Anna Nolan (ex-Nun and Big Brother contestant who is gay).

the-goon wrote:Sine, I fully understand the concept of hate speech. And reading the definition you provided, everyone should be concerned about 2 issues.
1. Who decides what speech is prejudicial, what authority do they act upon, and what measures are in place to stop abuse of this considerable power.
2. The concept of protected groups, does this mean that certain people have more rights than others? Protected vs presumably un-protected.

To bring this back to the topic at hand, I am showing that you (Sine and 7 1/2) have no interest in principles or facts. You act based purely on selective emotional outrage, and not only that, what you consider to an appropriate punishment is the ruining of their lives. I feel offended at X, therefore that person should never work again.

In a society and legal system based on universal principles, reason and fact, people who do not use these foundations for their opinion should not be given credibility nor the power to exercise them (but they are allowed to have their opinions).  

1. The courts decide. As an example in Republic of Ireland.

The Prohibition of Incitement to Hatred Act 1989 made it an offence to make, distribute, or broadcast "threatening, abusive or insulting" words, images, or sounds with intent or likelihood to "stir up hatred", where "hatred" is "against a group of persons in the State or elsewhere on account of their race, colour, nationality, religion, ethnic or national origins, membership of the travelling community or sexual orientation".

2. Yes, some groups are more vunerable and so have greater protection. Vunerable groups would be the gay and lesbian community.