Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding are to leave Ulster

First topic message reminder :

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


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

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

Anyone else?

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


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

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

So what has happened instead?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

For me if they were my clubs players I would never want them to play for the club again

Are you concerned that there may be players at your club who have a similar attitude and have swapped similar messges?

Am concerned that rugby players are no longer role models and that their clubs are hardly better... for instance the latest scandal over here is stade toulousain trying to cover for acts by a couple of players who allegedly assaulted a couple of people in a night club for no good reason (one ending up with broken arm and multiple bruises on his face and the other with broken ribs).

whocares wrote:Am concerned that rugby players are no longer role models and that their clubs are hardly better... for instance the latest scandal over here is stade toulousain trying to cover for acts by a couple of players who allegedly assaulted a couple of people in a night club for no good reason (one ending up with broken arm and multiple bruises on his face and the other with broken ribs).

Yea but from what I've seen from recent years in rugby is that things like drunken behaviour, whether it be violent or dangerously drink driving and risking public lives are much much less serious than saying naughty things about women. That is apparently much more abhorrent. Assault isn't THAT bad as long as it's a grown man on a grown man. And risking lives by driving drunk isn't THAT serious as long a s police stop you before you manage to crash.

A player who drink drives repeatedly and could well have led to a loss of innocent life - that isn't worth the club remarking upon...

Oh and actually, it's apparently ok to say demeaning things about women as long as you weren't also accused of and cleared of r***.

Yea, it seems to be the naughty derogatory language mixed with an acquittal that UR REALLY can't stomach.

All I ask for is consistency. It's the blatant obvious reality that this was a financial sponsor based decision and not because the club agreed or disagreed with anybody. Yep, the players are nothing more that a business asset. And in this case, the business decided to put some of their machinery in the skip when all it needed was maintenance and a bit of coaxing to be made right again. And why? Because their biggest buyer told them to.

It may be true that they should be away, but you can't deny there's a severe lack of clarity and glaring inconsistency across the sport for players who do wrong.

Exeter and ASM have distanced themselves from the players, this decision may not just have ended their international careers but their careers full stop.

No club is going to step into the public limelight right now to say they’ve signed them. Let season end and mid summer announce it when everyone’s focused on soccer during the WC.

its also a bloody good way to drive the expected wage down

Or Exeter and ASM 's sponsors have said no - both are community type clubs. Imagine Jackson and Olding are too toxic for them.

Seems possible that Jackson may be coming to London Irish.

It's pretty pathetic the way that a segment of the Irish population refuses to let this story - and the two lads - move on.

Take the poster Sin é for example. A sad keyboard warrior who spreads unsubstantiated rumour and gossip like a teenage girl and is so obviously inadequate that he has to respond to any alternative opinion on Jackson & Olding. What will he do when the lads move abroad? Will we get regular updates on Paddy Jackson's social life in London or Paris? Can't wait....

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

No you don't, but oddly we both want the same outcome. Still think your reasoning is ridiculous.

TJ wrote:For me if they were my clubs players I would never want them to play for the club again

Yep, cleared of all charges, and innocent, sack them!

https://www.mjscriminaldefencelawyers.co.uk/Blog/scottish-rugby-star-guilty-of-assault.html

Guilty of assault, no problem.

TJ, a hypocrite, no never....

Nothing hypocritical about having a principled stance. Even what they are known to have e done and admitted to have done would mean I would never want them to play for the club I support. their behaviour has been disgusting.

Fortunatly Ulster rugby think the same. I would think the same for any of the Edinburgh players.

Ulster Rugby do not think the same. The morally divine Bank of Ireland and deluded hashtag gand called this one. Just because Ulster Rugby are spineless doesn't mean they agree.

TJ wrote:Nothing hypocritical about having a principled stance.  Even what they are known to have e done and admitted to have done would mean I would never want them to play for the club I support.  their behaviour has been disgusting.

Fortunatly Ulster rugby think the same.  I would think the same for any of the Edinburgh players.  

No their behaviour is fine. They are guilty of sending vulgar text messages in private. Big deal, such monsters.

The most disgusting act is coming from people who want to treat innocent people as rapists. Now that's disgusting.

Collapse2005 wrote:

TJ wrote:Nothing hypocritical about having a principled stance.  Even what they are known to have e done and admitted to have done would mean I would never want them to play for the club I support.  their behaviour has been disgusting.

Fortunatly Ulster rugby think the same.  I would think the same for any of the Edinburgh players.  

No their behaviour is fine. They are guilty of sending vulgar text messages in private. Big deal, such monsters.

The most disgusting act is coming from people who want to treat innocent people as rapists. Now that's disgusting.

Very true. The comments, meant to be only between those guys, were fairly vulgar but the spirit behind them was no more malicious than any much more vulgar comments I heard when I was a cub. The spirit behind them isn't misogynistic, it's simply to be vulgar as young lads love to be. I find their attackers much more openly vulgar and disgusting. One feminist twitter comment said that execution would was too good for them, nice! The faux horror and disgust shown by the unimaginative trolls on here is simply laughable and completely predictable from certain posters.

PJ and SO were never going to make a return to Ulster Rugby. There's no way they would ever be able to live a normal life in Belfast again so the hopes for their return were wishful thinking and pipe dreams. It's the manner in which they were dealt with to appease the BOI and the disgusting hashtaggers that is foul. Christian values have been mentioned in many of the discussions I've been a part of or read on here. I am no Christian yet in my atheist beliefs I have plenty of room for giving second chances and the opportunity for redemption. These people don't have that kind of room, bitterness and hatred takes up a lot of space it seems.

Why do you keep using feminist almost as an insult pete? We're all feminists here I'm sure.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why do you keep using feminist almost as an insult pete? We're all feminists here I'm sure.

Speak for yourself. I definitely wouldn't consider myself a bitter, illogical, self loathing misandrist. There is no place for such a one sided and sexist movement in modern society.

Any poll I have seen in recent years be it in the US, the UK, Ireland tends to see about a 50-50 split amongst men and amongst women who see themselves as feminists and those that don't. I would prefer a more egalitarian movement than such a one sided divisive movement.

Whoch is exactly what feminism is guns. Equality.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Whoch is exactly what feminism is guns. Equality.

I think you have to be particularly naïve to believe that. Feminism is about equality for women full stop. That is a one-sided version of equality that I don't subscribe to.

I support equality for all, feminism does not.

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Whoch is exactly what feminism is guns. Equality.

I think you have to be particularly naïve to believe that.

Not really, just because some feminists go too far doesn't mean the ideals behind feminism changes

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why do you keep using feminist almost as an insult pete? We're all feminists here I'm sure.

I refer only to the #ibelieveher excuses for feminists. I believe in equality very strongly but a I am not a feminist.

I think you are. You're just viewing it from a perspective that they're going too far. Advocacy for women's rights based on equality.

marty2086 wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Whoch is exactly what feminism is guns. Equality.

I think you have to be particularly naïve to believe that.

Not really, just because some feminists go too far doesn't mean the ideals behind feminism changes

I don't believe there are any ideals of feminism, the feminist view is so diverse and anarchic it is almost impossible to define. Even in my view those that claim certain ideals tend to practice alternative ones.

However, in reality and in practice it doesn't manifest itself in everyday life in a way that I would align my beliefs with as it doesn't represent a movement that is particularly interested in equality in my view and therefore I do not see myself as a feminist. I mean surely the clue is in the name, surely that's a poor starting point for a movement that wishes to be seen to believe in gender equality.

In my experience feminism suits those most who believe that we live in a patriarchal society, that women are weak entities that need extra protection and concession and that women's issues are more important, more widespread and systemic than men's. I don't believe that.

You really don't like definitions do you guns!

No 7&1/2 wrote:You really don't like definitions do you guns!

Not fake ones anyway. The definition of feminism is equality for women. Lots of people assume that that means by default gender equality but in reality it doesn't because it largely ignores the need for equality for men. As such you have to believe that women are the only ones that suffer gender inequality to believe that feminism will naturally address imbalances.

Feminism also pushes equality of outcome which is often contrary to equality of effort.

Lol.yes much better to make them up as individuals that we way we all know best!

No 7&1/2 wrote:Lol.yes much better to make them up as individuals that we way we all know best!

That seems to be what you do alright.

Not at all. I've even looked up the actual definition for you while you've decided on your own. As long as I know you use words incorrectly it's ok as I can ask you what you mean.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not at all. I've even looked up the actual definition for you while you've decided on your own. As long as I know you use words incorrectly it's ok as I can ask you what you mean.

Be sure to find a definition that suits your agenda.

The one in the dictionary will do. You can say that these people aren't feminists and are actually pushing for more rights than men. That's fine. That's what you mean. Feminism isn't that though.

Even the dictionary definition ignores the need for equality for men. Why as a man would you subscribe to such a movement. Are you self loathing?

Collapse2005 wrote:Even the dictionary definition ignores the need for equality for men.

A pedant writes:
It doesn't ignore it, because equality for women = equality for men.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Not at all. I've even looked up the actual definition for you while you've decided on your own. As long as I know you use words incorrectly it's ok as I can ask you what you mean.

Oh the irony of this statement!!

Rugby Fan wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:Even the dictionary definition ignores the need for equality for men.

A pedant writes:
It doesn't ignore it, because equality for women = equality for men.

That's what some people assume but any logical assessment fairly quickly concludes it doesn't at all because you can create equality for women in the ways they are unequal and ignore the ways in which women already have greater treatment over men which does not equal equality and that is generally how it manifests itself in my view.

That definition doesn't evoke a need to reduce women's rights to align them with men's less equal rights in certain areas such as in certain scenarios in family law for example.

No 7&1/2 wrote:The one in the dictionary will do. You can say that these people aren't feminists and are actually pushing for more rights than men. That's fine. That's what you mean. Feminism isn't that though.

Haha, they aren't TRUE feminists. ISIS aren't TRUE muslims. That wasn't TRUE socialism.

Ah well at least its a change of subject.
I looked it up to and got this
"The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."

Doesn't mention it advocates mens (or everyones) rights for equality of the sexes.

I think we most would say they support Egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism pushes equality for all, feminism pushes equality for woman.

Kingshu wrote:Ah well at least its a change of subject.
I looked it up to and got this
"The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."

Doesn't mention it advocates mens (or everyones) rights for equality of the sexes.

I think we most would say they support Egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism pushes equality for all, feminism pushes equality for woman.

Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others

Dear me. Sounds like some of you really don't want equality.

the-goon wrote:

Kingshu wrote:Ah well at least its a change of subject.
I looked it up to and got this
"The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."

Doesn't mention it advocates mens (or everyones) rights for equality of the sexes.

I think we most would say they support Egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism pushes equality for all, feminism pushes equality for woman.

Everyone is equal, some are more equal than others

Not true.....no one is my equal as I'm amazing

Kingshu wrote:Ah well at least its a change of subject.
I looked it up to and got this
"The advocacy of women's rights on the ground of the equality of the sexes."

Doesn't mention it advocates mens (or everyones) rights for equality of the sexes.

I think we most would say they support Egalitarianism.

Egalitarianism pushes equality for all, feminism pushes equality for woman.

Exactly, even by definition feminism is a very wishy washy version of egalitarianism and in practice it is even more unequitable. I cant understand how anyone can consider themselves a feminist any more. Its a very illogical stance.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Dear me. Sounds like some of you really don't want equality.

Not your wishy washy one sided version of equality.

But one where men have more rights guns? I'm not sure what dictionary you guys use but equality is equality over here.

No 7&1/2 wrote:But one where men have more rights guns? I'm not sure what dictionary you guys use but equality is equality over here.

No one where men and women have equal rights and opportunities. Not a movement solely interested in women's issues.

Ah. You mean you want feminism then which advocates equal rights. We've finally got there.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah. You mean you want feminism then which advocates equal rights. We've finally got there.

I think the clue is in the name. Feminism advocates for equal rights for women. Not equal rights for men. Are you always this thick?

Lol.

If feminism was about equality I may well be one myself. It is not (despite the dictionary definition) therefore I am not, nor ever will be one. Dictionary definitions rarely include the true spirit of that which is being defined.

Pete330v2 wrote:If feminism was about equality I may well be one myself. It is not (despite the dictionary definition) therefore I am not, nor ever will be one. Dictionary definitions rarely include the true spirit of that which is being defined.

Pete except that that's exactly what it's about, it's just been bastardedised and misrepresented at times

Collapse2005 wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah. You mean you want feminism then which advocates equal rights. We've finally got there.

I think the clue is in the name. Feminism advocates for equal rights for women. Not equal rights for men. Are you always this thick?

Equal to what though?
My understanding is that feminism advocates that women be treated the same as men - i.e., equal pay for equal work (which isn't the case now). Equal opportunities - woman want to have the samerepresentation in Parliament as men (bearing in mind that the population is 50/50 male/female).

To achieve this you might have to do some positive action towards fielding more female candidates.