Ulster - Appropriate Way Forward

by Hazel Sapling Wed 04 Apr 2018, 1:16 pm

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

by Pete330v2 Mon 09 Apr 2018, 12:14 pm

Sin é wrote:
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).

Nowhere does is say it was Anna Nolan (Syrian Camapigner). Lazy reporting from a sub-par rag leaving everyone to come to their own conclusions.

by Sin é Mon 09 Apr 2018, 12:21 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
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).

Nowhere does is say it was Anna Nolan (Syrian Camapigner). Lazy reporting from a sub-par rag leaving everyone to come to their own conclusions.

Nowhere did it say it was Anna Nolan (ex-Nun and former Big Brother contestant).

It wasn't too difficult to actually find out who it was (I just checked the Ad on twitter and knew immediately as Anna Nolan (Syrian campaigner) had tweeted it. But I suppose a gay, ex-Nun from Dublin suited a smear campaign better than a Syrian Peace Campaigner who is originally from Northern Ireland.

by the-goon Mon 09 Apr 2018, 12:26 pm

Sin é wrote:
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.

1. Who elects/appoints judges? And what right (in philosophical terms) do these people have to dictate what other citizens can say? Who ensures they do not abuse power?
2. Ok, so you don't believe everyone should be equal under the law. Like I said, you are illiberal and a wannabee tyrant.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 09 Apr 2018, 12:40 pm

I'd counter that goon with you haven't really read my thoughts in this case.

by Sin é Mon 09 Apr 2018, 1:20 pm

the-goon wrote:
Sin é wrote:
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.

1. Who elects/appoints judges? And what right (in philosophical terms) do these people have to dictate what other citizens can say? Who ensures they do not abuse power?
2. Ok, so you don't believe everyone should be equal under the law. Like I said, you are illiberal and a wannabee tyrant.

1. The Government appoints judges (in Ireland anyway). Ireland has a written constitution which would be Ireland's philosophical guide. Legislation emanates from that, so I suppose its the justice system ensures that there isn't an abuse of power.

2. The Constitution is the Ireland's bible. If you want to change anything in it, it has to go to a referendum. If you think I'm being illiberal and a want to be tyrant, then the whole Irish nation is.

For example, Ireland had a Referendum in the Same Sex Marriage (first country in the world to have one). 62% of voters agreed to change the Constitution to recognise Same Sex Marriage. i'd imagine that the 38% who didn't agree with it felt aggrieved, but they have to accept it.

Having a written Constitution is good to keep people on the straight and narrow. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html

Freedom of speech: Subject to "public order and morality", a qualified right of freedom of speech is guaranteed by Article 40.6.1°. However, "the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion" (such as the news media) "shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State". Furthermore, "the publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter" is specifically stated to be a criminal offence.

by Sin é Mon 09 Apr 2018, 1:35 pm

Just on the protection of minorities, here is an idea as to how it works. In Ireland, the vast majority of schools have a RC ethos (most of them were run/owned by religious orders). They need to become non-demoninational or lose their State grants. The lost of State grants won't apply to other religious schools who won't have to take all comers (they can discriminate in favour of their own community because they are minorities).

by the-goon Mon 09 Apr 2018, 1:44 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'd counter that goon with you haven't really read my thoughts in this case.

Well I had a look back on this thread to get your thoughts on the case. Let's see shall we.

Your 1st post was reasonable and balanced. Agree with the 1st statement, less so with the 2nd (Ulster shouldn't be in the position of morality policing).

Quote:
The club themselves need to welcome them back but acknowledge that it's not going to be easy and it probably.won't be quickly forgotten. They need open and honest communication with their fans and community and need to be seen as addressing the cave man behaviour of this (at best).

The next one seems to be where it all kicked off, you alleged that supporting the court verdict was somehow blind faith support for PJ and SO, and it being morally dubious (surprised by it). And then you would defend people who ignored the verdict and wanted retribution anyway i.e. The feelings over facts brigade.

Quote:
surprised the amount fo faith an backing some of you have for these players.

Quote:
I'm just pleased they don't play for a club of mine so I don't have to begrudgingly accept they're there. I repeat though I do think the club needs to communicate with protesters and not right them off as a bunch of crazies.

Quote:
Why call a group of people feminazis. It's language like that which serves in a way to dismiss out of hand any of the varied points they may have.

Quote:
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.

To conclude, while your opening statement is reasonable, and is something we would broadly agree upon, everything following this you have said on the issue completely contradicts it. Ulster should respect the verdict and welcome them back, but the people who want them sacked and think they are in fact r**ists have a fair argument and should be listened to? Which is it? These are mutually exclusive positions. This is why I think you don't mean what you initially said.

If I have this wrong, please clarify.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 09 Apr 2018, 1:50 pm

Both. Some of the quotes there were obviously in response to other comments ie people surprised at responses to protests. I would also still insist that anyone thinking trials like this and indeed most other cases being 100 per cent in judging the innocent innocent and vice versa is indeed.kidding themselves. So personally I don't see it as contrasting that the club accept them.back into the fold but look to open dialogue to the wider community as to why certain decisions will be undertaken and to improve training around areas.of consent through their rugby club and into community initiatives etc. To respond to any protesters with nope not listening they're innocent the court said end of story etc serves to keep the debate on the table rather than trying to move past it.

by the-goon Mon 09 Apr 2018, 2:04 pm

Sin é wrote:
the-goon wrote:
Sin é wrote:
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.

1. Who elects/appoints judges? And what right (in philosophical terms) do these people have to dictate what other citizens can say? Who ensures they do not abuse power?
2. Ok, so you don't believe everyone should be equal under the law. Like I said, you are illiberal and a wannabee tyrant.

1. The Government appoints judges (in Ireland anyway). Ireland has a written constitution which would be Ireland's philosophical guide. Legislation emanates from that, so I suppose its the justice system ensures that there isn't an abuse of power.

2. The Constitution is the Ireland's bible. If you want to change anything in it, it has to go to a referendum. If you think I'm being illiberal and a want to be tyrant, then the whole Irish nation is.

For example, Ireland had a Referendum in the Same Sex Marriage (first country in the world to have one). 62% of voters agreed to change the Constitution to recognise Same Sex Marriage. i'd imagine that the 38% who didn't agree with it felt aggrieved, but they have to accept it.

Having a written Constitution is good to keep people on the straight and narrow. http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/cons/en/html

Freedom of speech: Subject to "public order and morality", a qualified right of freedom of speech is guaranteed by Article 40.6.1°. However, "the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion" (such as the news media) "shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State". Furthermore, "the publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter" is specifically stated to be a criminal offence.

Personally I have huge issues with the lack of protection for speech in Europe.

So it seems that the way Irish law has been written, there is no mechanism stop abuse of power. The justice system ensures the government appointed judges don't abuse power. This is how the Count Dankula shambles in the UK happened (side note).

A right is not a right if it can be revoked. A "qualified right" is in fact a privilege; you can say what you want, but only what the government will allow you to.

There should absolutely be a referendum to have a 1st amendment on free speech added to the Irish Constitution. I find it worrying that people don't see this as a huge issue.

My point about you being illiberal, is by creating protected groups means you treat different people differently based upon certain characteristics. This is a collectivist view point, and not an individualist view. Collectivism is by definition unjust and tyrannical.

by The Great Aukster Mon 09 Apr 2018, 2:12 pm

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.

Turn on your radio and you will hear plenty of songs publicly broadcast with racism and sexism in the lyrics and 50% of the audience would be women. Why aren't these people protesting outside the RTE offices in Donnybrook or the BBC in Belfast against such disrespectful attitudes to women? Doesn't seem very consistent?

If it's the drinking binge they're protesting about why are they being singled out when it happens at other provinces and the national side too? Is there a rule for one and a different rule for another?
http://rugbylad.com/paul-oconnell-recalls-24-hour-drinking-binge-following-rwc-2011-loss/

Sin é wrote:62% of voters agreed to change the Constitution to recognise Same Sex Marriage. i'd imagine that the 38% who didn't agree with it felt aggrieved, but they have to accept it.

It's interesting that 100% of the jurors agreed on a not guilty verdict in a Court of Law, yet those who feel aggrieved do not accept it. It seems that in this case neither the Law nor Democracy are held in as high regard north of the border.

by the-goon Mon 09 Apr 2018, 2:23 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Both. Some of the quotes there were obviously in response to other comments ie people surprised at responses to protests. I would also still insist that anyone thinking trials like this and indeed most other cases being 100 per cent in judging the innocent innocent and vice versa is indeed.kidding themselves. So personally I don't see it as contrasting that the club accept them.back into the fold but look to open dialogue to the wider community as to why certain decisions will be undertaken and to improve training around areas.of consent through their rugby club and into community initiatives etc. To respond to any protesters with nope not listening they're innocent the court said end of story etc serves to keep the debate on the table rather than trying to move past it.

No one is saying trials are 100% accurate. In this case, who do you think is in the best position to come to a verdict on what happened that night. The jury, unbiased and with access to all available information; or protesters, heavily biased and who have access to only snippets?

Assuming you agree the response is the jury, why should Ulster listen to the protestors? So anyone thinking they are guilty don't have a valid/rational argument, so can quite rightly be ignored. Can we agree on this?

What other "legitimate" issues do the protesters have? #ibelieveher means they are the group we have agreed (i hope) can be ignored.

Consent? According to the best available information, the lads had consent.
Calling women sluts (a term the accuser used btw)? This boils into the free speech issue.

Are these issues a rugby club should involve itself with? I say no, if you say yes, fair enough we disagree

by No 7&1/2 Mon 09 Apr 2018, 2:28 pm

Oh ulster can definitely ignore the protests if they wish to. Just don't think it benefits the to do so as they would rumble on should they stone wall it. Very few people believe in completely free speech. I certainly don't so we differ on that.

by Pete330v2 Mon 09 Apr 2018, 2:39 pm

"Calling women sluts (a term the accuser used btw)? This boils into the free speech issue."

Used by the accuser and the one player who wasn't on trial but not the 2 players at the epicenter of the protestors' wrath. For that matter the one player who has received the most abuse, referred to in the most vile ways is the one person who barely commented at all. The #ibelieveher group don't even know who to be angry at let alone about what so why would the IRFU or Ulster Rugby engage with them. They were already doing what the mob are demanding anyway with the review.

Nobody has claimed that any court of law can 100% judge the innocent as innocent etc but that's not what this trial was about. This trial was about the complainant proving her accusations which her legal team failed to do, they didn't even come close.

by marty2086 Mon 09 Apr 2018, 2:56 pm

Statement from the URSC

In light of the IRFU and Ulster Rugby review of the actions of Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding and Craig Gilroy, which commences today, URSC has sent the following statement to Ulster Rugby

The Ulster Rugby Supporters’ Club (URSC) is the official independent Supporters Club of Ulster Rugby. It was founded in June 2004 and is run by fans for fans.
The URSC acknowledges that recent events involving Stuart Olding, Paddy Jackson and Craig Gilroy have been difficult and traumatic for all involved. The URSC respects both the judicial outcome and the IRFU review process which it regards as a matter solely for the players and their employer.
The URSC has noted the considerable body of social media commentary over the past week, much of which it regards as uninformed, and as a result unhelpful. The URSC has also noted in particular, the advertisement placed in the Belfast Telegraph on Friday 6 April by 139 people purporting to be “concerned fans” and the disproportionate attention it has received from other media outlets.
The URSC can confirm that it had no part in this advertisement and doubts that any of the 139 who contributed financially to this advertisement are amongst its membership. The URSC can further confirm that it has received no calls from its membership for the aforementioned players to be banned from playing for Ulster, on the contrary, the vast majority of members have made it clear they wish to see their early reinstatement to playing duties.
Indeed many have made it clear that if this is not the case it will strongly influence their decision on season ticket renewal or their future Kingspan attendance. URSC is concerned that if such is the case, the numbers involved could impact adversely on support for the team and income for Ulster Rugby through the ticket sales.
Meanwhile URSC would urge all fans to get behind the team and SUFTUM at the final two Kingspan games of the season.
Jonathan Bill (Chairman)

by geoff999rugby Mon 09 Apr 2018, 3:12 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:
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.

Normally I would agree with you but this one has taken off big time.

Around the 7500 mark inside 2 days
Big names have signed as well Les Kiss, Johnny Bell, Isaac Boss
Also noticed Aaron Hall - doesn't sound like a lad leaving

Also worth noting as many women as men signing

by geoff999rugby Mon 09 Apr 2018, 3:23 pm

Statement by the supporters club

An official grouping of Ulster Rugby supporters has hit out at “uninformed” social media commentary regarding the Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding r*** trial, and said it wants to see the players back in Ulster jerseys as soon as possible. The Ulster Rugby Supporters’ Club (URSC) – the team’s official independent supporters’ club founded in 2004 – said it had no part in an advert from ‘concerned fans’ placed in last Friday’s Belfast Telegraph calling for the players never to represent Ulster and Ireland again. Chairman Jonathan Bill said: “The URSC acknowledges that recent events involving Stuart Olding, Paddy Jackson and Craig Gilroy have been difficult and traumatic for all involved. The URSC respects both the judicial outcome and the IRFU review process which it regards as a matter solely for the players and their employer. “The URSC has noted the considerable body of social media commentary over the past week, much of which it regards as uninformed, and as a result unhelpful. The URSC has also noted in particular, the advertisement placed in the Belfast Telegraph on Friday (April 6) by 139 people purporting to be “concerned fans” and the disproportionate attention it has received from other media outlets. “The URSC can confirm that it had no part in this advertisement and doubts that any of the 139 who contributed financially to this advertisement are amongst its membership. The URSC can further confirm that it has received no calls from its membership for the aforementioned players to be banned from playing for Ulster, on the contrary, the vast majority of members have made it clear they wish to see their early reinstatement to playing duties. “Indeed many have made it clear that if this is not the case it will strongly influence their decision on season ticket renewal or their future Kingspan attendance. URSC is concerned that if such is the case, the numbers involved could impact adversely on support for the team and income for Ulster Rugby through the ticket sales.” Mr Bill urged fans to get behind the team and SUFTUM at the final two Kingspan games of the season.” Meanwhile, almost 5,000 people have signed an online petition to have Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding – found not guilty of raping a 19-year-old student in June 2016 – reinstated for Ulster Rugby.

Looks like the backlash against the social media mob is in full swing.

by the-goon Mon 09 Apr 2018, 3:31 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Oh ulster can definitely ignore the protests if they wish to. Just don't think it benefits the to do so as they would rumble on should they stone wall it. Very few people believe in completely free speech. I certainly don't so we differ on that.

You didn't address my questions.

by No 7&1/2 Mon 09 Apr 2018, 3:37 pm

Sorry thought they were rhetorical.
The jury would be best placed.
Ulster should listen as it's likely to rumble on keeping it in the media spotlight and probably.won't help the players move on.

Consent as a lot think they're guilty and at least shows the club are working around ensuring players etc are being held to standards and receiving training at what could.even be consider dodgy ground.
Yes rugby clubs should be an important part of the community and helping integration etc etc as should other sports.

by marty2086 Mon 09 Apr 2018, 4:15 pm

It's over 8k now geoff and got nearly 200 more in about 15mins

I did see a name pop up similar to that of a member of the Ulster staff that might now help the matter though

by Sin é Mon 09 Apr 2018, 5:19 pm

the-goon wrote:

Personally I have huge issues with the lack of protection for speech in Europe.

So it seems that the way Irish law has been written, there is no mechanism stop abuse of power. The justice system ensures the government appointed judges don't abuse power. This is how the Count Dankula shambles in the UK happened (side note).

A right is not a right if it can be revoked. A "qualified right" is in fact a privilege; you can say what you want, but only what the government will allow you to.

There should absolutely be a referendum to have a 1st amendment on free speech added to the Irish Constitution. I find it worrying that people don't see this as a huge issue.

My point about you being illiberal, is by creating protected groups means you treat different people differently based upon certain characteristics. This is a collectivist view point, and not an individualist view. Collectivism is by definition unjust and tyrannical.

I think democracy in ROI is fairly robust with plenty of checks and balances. If Leo wanted to do something like what the Polish President has done he would first of all have to get it through the Government (its a coalition Gov), then Senate, then the Dail and then past the (elected) President (who can refer it to a Council of State which is made up of all previous Taoiseach (4 at the moment), former Presidents (2 at the moment), former Chief Justices (3) and 7 nominees of the President who are generally civic leaders in society.

There is free speech, but you have to be accountable for what you say and you cannot incite to hate.

What you think is illiberal, I regard as positive discrimination which is just favouring sections of society which suffer discrimination. For example, the State might employ a couple of disabled people or say down in my local supermarket they have a Down Syndrome lad working there.

by Sin é Mon 09 Apr 2018, 5:33 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
Turn on your radio and you will hear plenty of songs publicly broadcast with racism and sexism in the lyrics and 50% of the audience would be women. Why aren't these people protesting outside the RTE offices in Donnybrook or the BBC in Belfast against such disrespectful attitudes to women? Doesn't seem very consistent?

If it's the drinking binge they're protesting about why are they being singled out when it happens at other provinces and the national side too? Is there a rule for one and a different rule for another?
http://rugbylad.com/paul-oconnell-recalls-24-hour-drinking-binge-following-rwc-2011-loss/

Sin é wrote:62% of voters agreed to change the Constitution to recognise Same Sex Marriage. i'd imagine that the 38% who didn't agree with it felt aggrieved, but they have to accept it.
It's interesting that 100% of the jurors agreed on a not guilty verdict in a Court of Law, yet those who feel aggrieved do not accept it. It seems that in this case neither the Law nor Democracy are held in as high regard north of the border.

I don't know what you are listening to, but I can't recall any that are racist/sexist (the black rappers can say stuff that you and I would consider derogratory towards black people)

I don't think there is too much binge drinking going on in Munster/Leinster by the senior team anyway. What POC got up to was fairly harmless I'd say - I wonder how many shots his mother and father and John Eales knocked back on his binge drinking spree? I'd say the binge was he didn't go to bed for 24 hours.

And for ffs, can you not get it through your head that the issue is with their misogynic attitude towards women (displayed for all to see in their text messages to each other).

by Sin é Mon 09 Apr 2018, 5:35 pm

geoff999rugby wrote:Statement by the supporters club

Looks like the backlash against the social media mob is in full swing.

You'll need to back up those words by putting your wallet where your mouth is. Thats what the so called 'social media mob' did.

by Pete330v2 Mon 09 Apr 2018, 7:09 pm

Sin é wrote:
geoff999rugby wrote:Statement by the supporters club

Looks like the backlash against the social media mob is in full swing.

You'll need to back up those words by putting your wallet where your mouth is. Thats what the so called 'social media mob' did.

What like buy tickets etc?

by Sin é Mon 09 Apr 2018, 7:15 pm

Pete330v2 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
geoff999rugby wrote:Statement by the supporters club

Looks like the backlash against the social media mob is in full swing.

You'll need to back up those words by putting your wallet where your mouth is. Thats what the so called 'social media mob' did.

What like buy tickets etc?

Nope. Spend 2 grand on taking out an ad and not rely on social media.

by Standulstermen Mon 09 Apr 2018, 7:20 pm

Theres 67000 signature on the change.org campaign against Jackson and Olding and they managed to rustle up 139 donors for an ad. I dare say (should the players be reinstated) the amount of ST sales will be of more benefit to Ulster rugby and the IRFU than a 2k ad in the Belfast Telegraph. What joined up thinking. Jesus wept

by Pete330v2 Mon 09 Apr 2018, 7:24 pm

Standulstermen wrote:Theres 67000 signature on the change.org campaign against Jackson and Olding and they managed to rustle up 139 donors for an ad. I dare say (should the players be reinstated) the amount of ST sales will be of more benefit to Ulster rugby and the IRFU than a 2k ad in the Belfast Telegraph. What joined up thinking. Jesus wept

Joined up thinking Stand? With Sin é I'd be surprised if there was joined up writing.

by Pete330v2 Mon 09 Apr 2018, 7:29 pm

geoff999rugby wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:
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.

Normally I would agree with you but this one has taken off big time.

Around the 7500 mark inside 2 days
Big names have signed as well Les Kiss, Johnny Bell, Isaac Boss
Also noticed Aaron Hall - doesn't sound like a lad leaving

Also worth noting as many women as men signing

Very happy to be proved wrong it's just hit 10,300 and the votes are flying in so it's nice to see the level of support.
Who will take any notice though is what I mean by a waste of time, it won[t change anything. It's still nice to see though Smile

by marty2086 Mon 09 Apr 2018, 7:50 pm

Sin é wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
geoff999rugby wrote:Statement by the supporters club

Looks like the backlash against the social media mob is in full swing.

You'll need to back up those words by putting your wallet where your mouth is. Thats what the so called 'social media mob' did.

What like buy tickets etc?

Nope. Spend 2 grand on taking out an ad and not rely on social media.

Silly comment

So spend money on an ad rather than putting money into Ulster rugby which will have a greater impact on the decision making process as that will likely mean that the money will be there long term for Ulster

by marty2086 Mon 09 Apr 2018, 7:52 pm

Standulstermen wrote:Theres 67000 signature on the change.org campaign against Jackson and Olding and they managed to rustle up 139 donors for an ad. I dare say (should the players be reinstated) the amount of ST sales will be of more benefit to Ulster rugby and the IRFU than a 2k ad in the Belfast Telegraph. What joined up thinking. Jesus wept

Most who signed it don't seem to have read it, calling for a review and for the findings to be made public but the comments are calling for them to be sacked

by **profitius** Mon 09 Apr 2018, 7:54 pm

Sin é wrote:

Nowhere did it say it was Anna Nolan (ex-Nun and former Big Brother contestant).

It wasn't too difficult to actually find out who it was (I just checked the Ad on twitter and knew immediately as Anna Nolan (Syrian campaigner) had tweeted it. But I suppose a gay, ex-Nun from Dublin suited a smear campaign better than a Syrian Peace Campaigner who is originally from Northern Ireland.

Oh big brother. That show that gives a chance to those who have no talent but are desperate for fame. I suppose this is the latest bandwagon that can get her name in the news.

by marty2086 Mon 09 Apr 2018, 8:06 pm

Sin é wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
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).

Nowhere does is say it was Anna Nolan (Syrian Camapigner). Lazy reporting from a sub-par rag leaving everyone to come to their own conclusions.

Nowhere did it say it was Anna Nolan (ex-Nun and former Big Brother contestant).

It wasn't too difficult to actually find out who it was (I just checked the Ad on twitter and knew immediately as Anna Nolan (Syrian campaigner) had tweeted it. But I suppose a gay, ex-Nun from Dublin suited a smear campaign better than a Syrian Peace Campaigner who is originally from Northern Ireland.

Actually the BelTel in their story on it got it wrong and claimed it was the wrong Anna Nolan

by marty2086 Mon 09 Apr 2018, 8:09 pm

You know somethings wrong when Neil Best is talking more sense than most

Neil Best wrote:When the willingness is great, the difficulties cannot be great.

It was pleasing to see Ulster’s desire return them to winning ways at the weekend. After three defeats in a row, the win in Edinburgh was welcome respite in what has been a hugely disappointing season. Ulster didn’t have a spectacular start to the game but Edinburgh failed to take control either. It allowed Ulster to feel their way into things until Charles Piutau sparked their confidence. Ulster proved competent defensively and their backline slick in attack with Darren Cave making a strong case for a new contract.

The forwards have been a weak point for much of the season but they acquitted themselves well -not dominant but competitive. When the first scrum of the game came in the second half it exposed Ulster’s considerable achilles heel. Something they will have to remedy in the remaining weeks of the season to have any hope of salvaging a playoff spot.

It’s a big ask because they’re going to have to win four in a row -something they haven’t achieved since the opening month of the season. They haven’t even managed two in a row since the back to back wins against Harlequins in December.

Most significant maybe in Friday night’s performance was the presence of Rory Best -always talking and encouraging those around him. Whilst Ireland have benefitted from his leadership this season -it’s been largely at Ulster’s expense. You could see his influence in how Ulster closed out the last fifteen minutes -even though he was replaced by Rob Herring with a few minutes to go. A number of the pack raised their game against Edinburgh, with some younger players involved who will only get better with experience. A playoff remains possible even if unlikely.

The build-up to the game was significantly overshadowed by the ongoing suspension of Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding. It was a subject I had decided not to comment upon -until Craig Gilroy also found himself suspended. It’s clear to me his suspension was a direct result of it suddenly dawning on the Club that maintaining the suspension of the other two post-acquittal could only be done so on what they had admitted in evidence and the unsavoury Whatsapp messaging.

As Gilroy had been disclosed in Court as having participated in this group he too found himself suspended. However, bizarrely this didn’t come about when the Club became aware of the evidence to be produced at trial, or even during the trial itself, but post-trial when establishing a basis of continued suspension of Jackson and Olding.

If the club truly believed Gilroy’s participation in this messaging warranted suspension and investigation it should have happened sooner -and because this didn’t happen it suggests to me it’s an afterthought in response to public opinion. Indeed, much of the Club’s approach since the verdict suggests inadequate thought of how to manage the outcome of the trial whatever that might have been.

It also seems Jackson was done no favours by the public pronouncements of his lawyers in the immediate aftermath of the trial -if anything, it further antagonised public opinion towards him. It’s hard to believe that he was the origin of this strategy and his late in the day apology has done little to redeem the situation.

But there is still one necessary apology that hasn’t been made -from Ulster Rugby itself. Not only are these young men employees of Ulster Rugby, but they’d come through the youth system -supposedly prepared as potential role models, for the pressures of fame and wealth in the goldfish bowl that is Belfast.

The Club and that system must shoulder a shared responsibility for the character and behaviour of the young players it produces. Rather than suspending or sacking them maybe Ulster should seek to further educate them on the standards and attitudes it expects and review current programmes to minimise the prospect of one of their system’s products ever remotely becoming involved in anything like this again.

Ulster and Irish rugby will comfortably carry on next season without Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding or even Craig Gilroy but that would be the easy option. The more difficult and right course for Ulster Rugby to take is to retain these players and guide them to higher standards of conduct for what’s left of their playing careers.

The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future.

by The Great Aukster Mon 09 Apr 2018, 8:12 pm

The Great Aukster wrote:
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.

Turn on your radio and you will hear plenty of songs publicly broadcast with racism and sexism in the lyrics and 50% of the audience would be women. Why aren't these people protesting outside the RTE offices in Donnybrook or the BBC in Belfast against such disrespectful attitudes to women? Doesn't seem very consistent?

If it's the drinking binge they're protesting about why are they being singled out when it happens at other provinces and the national side too? Is there a rule for one and a different rule for another?
http://rugbylad.com/paul-oconnell-recalls-24-hour-drinking-binge-following-rwc-2011-loss/

Sin é wrote:62% of voters agreed to change the Constitution to recognise Same Sex Marriage. i'd imagine that the 38% who didn't agree with it felt aggrieved, but they have to accept it.
It's interesting that 100% of the jurors agreed on a not guilty verdict in a Court of Law, yet those who feel aggrieved do not accept it. It seems that in this case neither the Law nor Democracy are held in as high regard north of the border.

Sin é wrote:I don't know what you are listening to, but I can't recall any that are racist/sexist (the black rappers can say stuff that you and I would consider derogratory towards black people)

I don't think there is too much binge drinking going on in Munster/Leinster by the senior team anyway. What POC got up to was fairly harmless I'd say - I wonder how many shots his mother and father and John Eales knocked back on his binge drinking spree? I'd say the binge was he didn't go to bed for 24 hours.

And for ffs, can you not get it through your head that the issue is with their misogynic attitude towards women (displayed for all to see in their text messages to each other).

Your assertion was that "going on a four day drinking binge is hardly the best way to represent the values of Ulster rugby" yet what "POC got up to was fairly harmless". Can you agree that whatever the impact of either event on marketing revenue that this looks like double standards?

You can't recall any racist music yet then say "the black rappers can say stuff" that you would consider derogatory towards black people, so how do you know it's derogatory if you haven't heard it? Presumably 50% of the black people hearing the derogatory stuff are female so does that not qualify as being derogatory to women? Some people reckon anything from 20 to 35% of rap/Hip Hop music is misogynistic, so it's surprising that you've haven't heard any of this - here are a couple of articles with a plethora of examples:
http://www.thecrimson.com/column/where-rap-meets-race/article/2018/2/27/whererapmeetsrace-installment2/
https://www.stylist.co.uk/life/music-and-misogyny-why-were-all-listening-to-sexist-lyrics/56419
So why have the protesters suddenly taken umbrage with three privileged rugby players' private comments rather than the much coarser fare publicly broadcast? Logic would suggest that they are not protesting about the vocabulary at all but rather the trial outcome, which infers they do not support the Law nor the democracy that underpins it.

by Pete330v2 Mon 09 Apr 2018, 9:02 pm

"Ulster and Irish rugby will comfortably carry on next season without Paddy Jackson, Stuart Olding or even Craig Gilroy but that would be the easy option. The more difficult and right course for Ulster Rugby to take is to retain these players and guide them to higher standards of conduct for what’s left of their playing careers.
The only difference between the saint and the sinner is that every saint has a past, and every sinner has a future."

Wise words from Best indeed, as wise as I've read from anyone.

by geoff999rugby Mon 09 Apr 2018, 10:30 pm

Sin é wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:
Sin é wrote:
geoff999rugby wrote:Statement by the supporters club

Looks like the backlash against the social media mob is in full swing.

You'll need to back up those words by putting your wallet where your mouth is. Thats what the so called 'social media mob' did.

What like buy tickets etc?

Nope. Spend 2 grand on taking out an ad and not rely on social media.

So lets see 140 people spend £2000 that equals £14.30 pounds each (roughly)
I brought a ST for £300 and so have many others so I think the money where your mouth is accusation is well covered.

The not rely on social media accusation is laughable - the whole basis of trying to get the players out is a social media campaign or it is nothing.
This is simply hitting back using their own weapon.

The shear number will have a big impact also some of the names on there will hit on.
See Mick O'Driscoll has signed up

Should have been a rational decision taken in a calm atmosphere.
Sadly the player out campaign has made it a war or words.
They might have got what they wanted if they had kept quiet - no chance now
They have scored an own goal

by toml Mon 09 Apr 2018, 10:31 pm

Some boring sh!te on this thread. Strikes me that some are here because they like arguing for arguings sake

by the-goon Mon 09 Apr 2018, 11:06 pm

No 7&1/2 wrote:Sorry thought they were rhetorical.
The jury would be best placed.
Ulster should listen as it's likely to rumble on keeping it in the media spotlight and probably.won't help the players move on.

Consent as a lot think they're guilty and at least shows the club are working around ensuring players etc are being held to standards and receiving training at what could.even be consider dodgy ground.
Yes rugby clubs should be an important part of the community and helping integration etc etc as should other sports.

Thanks, I think it's easier if we answer specific questions, it stops us talking past each other.

Great, we agree the jury are best played to give a verdict. So why are you defending people who you have now admitted are not best placed to determine guilt or innocence? Surely we can dismiss the #Ibelieveher crowd as a group do not have the necessary information to formulate their opinion. What benefit is there in engaging them, because if they were rational, they would respect the verdict.

As for them being around, have you seen a Twitter grievance mob, there will be something else next week. These ppl don't care about Ulster or the girl, and once they get their fix of self-righteous activism they will be on their way. It's the real rugby fans they should listen to.

by Sin é Tue 10 Apr 2018, 12:32 am

[quote="The Great Aukster"]

The Great Aukster wrote:
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.

Turn on your radio and you will hear plenty of songs publicly broadcast with racism and sexism in the lyrics and 50% of the audience would be women. Why aren't these people protesting outside the RTE offices in Donnybrook or the BBC in Belfast against such disrespectful attitudes to women? Doesn't seem very consistent?

If it's the drinking binge they're protesting about why are they being singled out when it happens at other provinces and the national side too? Is there a rule for one and a different rule for another?
http://rugbylad.com/paul-oconnell-recalls-24-hour-drinking-binge-following-rwc-2011-loss/

Sin é wrote:62% of voters agreed to change the Constitution to recognise Same Sex Marriage. i'd imagine that the 38% who didn't agree with it felt aggrieved, but they have to accept it.
It's interesting that 100% of the jurors agreed on a not guilty verdict in a Court of Law, yet those who feel aggrieved do not accept it. It seems that in this case neither the Law nor Democracy are held in as high regard north of the border.

Sin é wrote:I don't know what you are listening to, but I can't recall any that are racist/sexist (the black rappers can say stuff that you and I would consider derogratory towards black people)

I don't think there is too much binge drinking going on in Munster/Leinster by the senior team anyway. What POC got up to was fairly harmless I'd say - I wonder how many shots his mother and father and John Eales knocked back on his binge drinking spree? I'd say the binge was he didn't go to bed for 24 hours.

And for ffs, can you not get it through your head that the issue is with their misogynic attitude towards women (displayed for all to see in their text messages to each other).

Your assertion was that "going on a four day drinking binge is hardly the best way to represent the values of Ulster rugby" yet what "POC got up to was fairly harmless". Can you agree that whatever the impact of either event on marketing revenue that this looks like double standards?

Well, first of all POC's 'binge' was 24 hours, not 48. Secondly, he was in good enough condition to meet his parents halfway through and have a chat with Eales. He even said that about 4 hours into his binge he could only about sip sparkling wine. Anyway, he wasn't picking up and having a threesome with Fergus McFadden and some young woman who he had never seen in his life before.

You can't recall any racist music yet then say "the black rappers can say stuff" that you would consider derogatory towards black people, so how do you know it's derogatory if you haven't heard it? Presumably 50% of the black people hearing the derogatory stuff are female so does that not qualify as being derogatory to women? Some people reckon anything from 20 to 35% of rap/Hip Hop music is misogynistic, so it's surprising that you've haven't heard any of this - here are a couple of articles with a plethora of examples:
http://www.thecrimson.com/column/where-rap-meets-race/article/2018/2/27/whererapmeetsrace-installment2/
https://www.stylist.co.uk/life/music-and-misogyny-why-were-all-listening-to-sexist-lyrics/56419

I had a look at the list you have there, I wouldn't be a big fan of any of them. According to one of those articles, most of them date back to the 60s/70s and recent one from Beyonce etc. have been criticised.

So why have the protesters suddenly taken umbrage with three privileged rugby players' private comments rather than the much coarser fare publicly broadcast? Logic would suggest that they are not protesting about the vocabulary at all but rather the trial outcome, which infers they do not support the Law nor the democracy that underpins it.

I'd imagine the reason why people don't want them wearing an Ireland jersey, representing them. Beyonce & co don't represent them.

And for the love of god, when will you get it into your head that the problem with the texts is what they were saying - i.e., joking about treating a woman like as if they were pigs on a spit. Its their attitude and total disrespect to women.

And no, its not sudden - we've had to listen to the tale of their sordid lives for the last nine weeks.

There was a woman on a chat show last week where she was saying that she and her 7 year old rugby playing son were watching one of the six nations games. She doesn't know a lot about rugby and the 7 year old was explaining to her about how Paddy Jackson was missing. She asked why he was missing and the 7 year old said he is missing because of the 'girl.' The child is 7! She said that they were all talking about it in the club.

by Cyril Tue 10 Apr 2018, 12:41 am

Double post

by No 7&1/2 Tue 10 Apr 2018, 6:39 am

Because goon as we all agree juries are not infallible. And in or in people like the protesters could in my view drag the issue on and on which won't help the club or the players.

by geoff999rugby Tue 10 Apr 2018, 9:24 am

Calling a woman a bitch is ok but referring to women as sluts is not

Double standards Sin e ?

Oh.. now I realise the word bitch came from a Munster players mouth so thats ok then Rolling Eyes

by Pete330v2 Tue 10 Apr 2018, 9:26 am

"There was a woman on a chat show last week where she was saying that she and her 7 year old rugby playing son were watching one of the six nations games. She doesn't know a lot about rugby and the 7 year old was explaining to her about how Paddy Jackson was missing. She asked why he was missing and the 7 year old said he is missing because of the 'girl.' The child is 7! She said that they were all talking about it in the club."

And?? It's been all over the media, even the 6 o'clock news and that's pre-watershed. WOW.

I see the 42.ie has polled 1000 people and 55% didn't want to see PJ and SO in an Irish shirt again (no mention of CG). 1000 people taken from god knows where and all they could get to vote negatively was 55%. I could take a poll of 1000 people 100% of whom want to see them back playing, in fact I could conduct 12 polls of 1000 people simultaneously (maybe more, I've not checked the petition today) and still get the 100%.
Aren't statistics so very malleable if you have an agenda.

by marty2086 Tue 10 Apr 2018, 9:32 am

Pete what was the question though? These things are a science and throwing out a random question isn't the best way to gauge opinion. How many of that 55% would switch off if they did play for Ireland?

by geoff999rugby Tue 10 Apr 2018, 9:33 am

Over 12000 people signed a petition to retain the players, in less than 2 days, and it would have gone further if it had not been pulled

That's the only stat that counts for me - the supporter base has spoken

by Pete330v2 Tue 10 Apr 2018, 9:37 am

marty2086 wrote:Pete what was the question though? These things are a science and throwing out a random question isn't the best way to gauge opinion. How many of that 55% would switch off if they did play for Ireland?

Very true Marty, you can skew any poll depending on the question, the demographic or how you interpret the outcome.

A Gofundme page has been set up for an advert to allow the boys to play again. It's reached £1600 in less than 24 hours with 61 contributors. Once again, speaks volumes.

by Sin é Tue 10 Apr 2018, 9:48 am

geoff999rugby wrote:Calling a woman a bitch is ok but referring to women as sluts is not

Double standards Sin e ?

Oh.. now I realise the word bitch came from a Munster players mouth so thats ok then

Where did I say calling a woman is a bitch is ok? And for the record I don't.
It comes from a music genre that I don't listen to.
And no, I don't think its right coming from any player (including Munster players).
I found that whole episode involving the Munster players sordid and distasteful and the only positive thing about it was that at least there were no questions afterwards about whether it was consensual or not, there were no nasty conversations afterwards demeaning women between the participants.

by Pete330v2 Tue 10 Apr 2018, 10:00 am

"the only positive thing about it was that at least there were no questions afterwards about whether it was consensual or not"

Really? So a threesome is OK as long as it's consensual?

by Sin é Tue 10 Apr 2018, 10:03 am

Pete330v2 wrote:
And?? It's been all over the media, even the 6 o'clock news and that's pre-watershed. WOW.

Yea, it was all over the news for 9 weeks for all the wrong reasons. Some parents were put out about having to start sex education to 7 years old.

I see the 42.ie has polled 1000 people and 55% didn't want to see PJ and SO in an Irish shirt again (no mention of CG). 1000 people taken from god knows where and all they could get to vote negatively was 55%. I could take a poll of 1000 people 100% of whom want to see them back playing, in fact I could conduct 12 polls of 1000 people simultaneously (maybe more, I've not checked the petition today) and still get the 100%.
Aren't statistics so very malleable if you have an agenda.

You are very poor on detail Pete.

It wasn't the 42.ie that conducted this survey. It was the Claire Byrne Live show on RTE last night (its a current affairs programme). The research was done by Amarach Research in a telephone survey of 1,000 people from ROI (not NI). The question was:
''Would you like to see Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding back playing international rugby for Ireland?
The results were: 55% No, 26% Yes, 19% Undecided.

You can watch the segment of the programme from here. https://www.rte.ie/player/ie/show/claire-byrne-live-extras-30003215/10862310/

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

by Sin é Tue 10 Apr 2018, 10:06 am

Pete330v2 wrote:"the only positive thing about it was that at least there were no questions afterwards about whether it was consensual or not"

Really? So a threesome is OK as long as it's consensual?

I wasn't commenting on the morality of the issue on this occasion. I was commenting that at least the woman involved didn't run out of the hotel very upset and we didn't have hear all the sordid details of the night in question every night for 9 weeks.

by marty2086 Tue 10 Apr 2018, 10:07 am

Sin é wrote:
Pete330v2 wrote:"the only positive thing about it was that at least there were no questions afterwards about whether it was consensual or not"

Really? So a threesome is OK as long as it's consensual?

I wasn't commenting on the morality of the issue on this occasion. I was commenting that at least the woman involved didn't run out of the hotel very upset and we didn't have hear all the sordid details of the night in question every night for 9 weeks.

If you didn't hear the sordid details how do you know she didn't leave upset?

by Sponsored content

What should happen next?