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.

Collapse2005 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

Haha, if you disagree with Sine on topic X, your views on unrelated topic Y must instantly be ignored. Amazing, you are an endless source of entertainment.

BTW, it's illegal to pay women less for the same work as men just because they are women, if you know this is happening call the police.

Isn't it strange that all these companies pay women less for the same work, and then hire mainly women to do their payroll, thus giving women access to their crime. Yet nothing happens.

If companies could get away with paying women less then they would only hire women as the labour would be cheaper. The fact is they cant though and they most certainly don't in the overall scheme of things. You have to have the naivety of a 13 year old girl to believe there is some sort conspiracy against women re pay.

Brian Dobson & Sharon Ni Bheolain! 60K+ in the difference of pay even though both doing exactly the same job.

Then there is the Financial Officers getting paid less.

What is this 'unpaid' work you are talking about that has been removed from the reckoning?
I think the reason women give for working less hours is that they have to leave at 5pm to collect the children from the creche!

The Great Aukster wrote:

Sin é wrote:You are behind on your feminism waves. The current one is 4th Wave.

Fourth-wave feminism is the resurgence of interest in feminism that began around 2012 and is associated with the use of social media.[1] According to feminist scholar Prudence Chamberlain, the focus of the fourth wave is justice for women and opposition to sexual harassment and violence against women. Its essence, she writes, is "incredulity that certain attitudes can still exist".

Justice for women and opposition to sexual harassment and violence! Pity the feminists attacking Jackson didn't apply those principles to their own behaviour. Dara Florence has been harassed and abused for what - telling the truth. She is being hounded out of Ireland, and will have to leave friends and family because her truth wasn't what the mob wanted to hear.

How is Dara being hounded out of Ireland? How is she being harassed? I had a look at twitter and there is one person (who isn't based in Belfast) seems to have it in for her. She seems to think she was bought off by one of the defendants parents and will head off now to enjoy the spoils.

Lets not forget, someone circulated Dara's photo as well thinking she was the complainant and there were some awful things said about her, not to mention one of the lads sending around a photo of herself with her 2 friends labelling them Belfast sluts.

Sin é - I have not quoted your post because it contained a defamatory allegation that should not be perpetuated.

Twitter isn't the only social media in existence, nor the only means of sending messages for that matter. When someone has been verbally abused and physically threatened to the point where they cannot go out in public without fear of confrontation - is it not reasonable to consider that as being hounded out?

It's interesting you accept the word of one person who "seems to have it in for her" making a scurrilous and unproven allegation against DF. Isn't is also ironic that a woman (presumably feminist?) should consider an unproven scurrilous accusation against a woman to be justifiable, yet an unproven scurrilous accusation against a man to be a miscarriage of justice - where's the equality in that?

Sin é wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

Haha, if you disagree with Sine on topic X, your views on unrelated topic Y must instantly be ignored. Amazing, you are an endless source of entertainment.

BTW, it's illegal to pay women less for the same work as men just because they are women, if you know this is happening call the police.

Isn't it strange that all these companies pay women less for the same work, and then hire mainly women to do their payroll, thus giving women access to their crime. Yet nothing happens.

If companies could get away with paying women less then they would only hire women as the labour would be cheaper. The fact is they cant though and they most certainly don't in the overall scheme of things. You have to have the naivety of a 13 year old girl to believe there is some sort conspiracy against women re pay.

Brian Dobson & Sharon Ni Bheolain!  60K+ in the difference of pay even though both doing exactly the same job.

Then there is the Financial Officers getting paid less.

What is this 'unpaid' work you are talking about that has been removed from the reckoning?
I think the reason women give for working less hours is that they have to leave at 5pm to collect the children from the creche!

Brian Dobson has been in the job for about 15 years more than Sharon Ni Bheolain. The discrepancy could easily be accounted for annual pay rises and rewarding years of service. He is also very close to retirement age (if he hasn't already retired) so it isn't unreasonable to be on a higher salary. Ni Bheolain also left the post for a while in 2013 so didn't offer continuous service unlike Dobson. Just because you are a woman doesn't give you an automatic right to the same salary as your peers, you must work for it like everyone else. There are more female news readers in RTE than male ones so if anything it appears as if her gender may have had a positive impact on her career trajectory.

OECD don't break down the figures for unpaid work but it presumably relates to charity work, care positions etc. The stats are all on the OECD website easily attainable.

I have worked in the financial services industry for 20 years, women do not get paid less at all in this industry, you are talking out of your hat.

Only an idiot concludes that salary discrepancies automatically equate to discrimination.

You've gone from there are no discrepancies to discrepancies don't equate discrimination quite quickly.

No 7&1/2 wrote:You've gone from there are no discrepancies to discrepancies don't equate discrimination quite quickly.

You clearly didn't read my post. You also have very little of interest or intelligence to offer to any debate.

Good side step guns.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Good side step guns.

Read the post and try to make an intelligent arguement against what I have said. You routinely contribute nothing but spam. Arent you able to put forward an intellegent arguement?

Yup. You've acknowledged there is disparity.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Yup. You've acknowledged there is disparity.

You are quite thick. From the start I have explained the disparity you dope. The pay gap is explained by hours worked for example. Try to post something intelligent. Put a bit of thought into your posts.

Ah so when you said that companies most certainly don't pay less you meant they most certainly do. But that it is also a fair disparity. Got you guns.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Ah so when you said that companies most certainly don't pay less you meant they most certainly do. But that it is also a fair disparity. Got you guns.

No they don't pay people less based on their gender. For all the examples given there is literally zero evidence that people were paid less based on their gender. When someone gets paid less than someone else there nearly always are a variety of other much more prominent variables and factors.

Honestly don't you ever have anything intelligent to contribute? Your posts display the depth of intelligence of a gnat. Do some critical thinking.

Time to lock this particular thread and let it die with what little dignity it has left eh?

Simply pointing out you changed quickly. Yes there are numerous reasons why people are paid different rates. Another example of a law which can be very hard to prove when broken.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Simply pointing out you changed quickly. Yes there are numerous reasons why people are paid different rates. Another example of a law which can be very hard to prove when broken.

You are pointing out your lack of intelligence and ability to understand fairly straightforward opinions.

No. Just pointed out you started off saying there was.no disparity then suddenly there is but it isn't due to sexist policies. I'm sure some isn't and some is.

Collapse2005 wrote:

Sin é wrote:

Collapse2005 wrote:

the-goon wrote:

Haha, if you disagree with Sine on topic X, your views on unrelated topic Y must instantly be ignored. Amazing, you are an endless source of entertainment.

BTW, it's illegal to pay women less for the same work as men just because they are women, if you know this is happening call the police.

Isn't it strange that all these companies pay women less for the same work, and then hire mainly women to do their payroll, thus giving women access to their crime. Yet nothing happens.

If companies could get away with paying women less then they would only hire women as the labour would be cheaper. The fact is they cant though and they most certainly don't in the overall scheme of things. You have to have the naivety of a 13 year old girl to believe there is some sort conspiracy against women re pay.

Brian Dobson & Sharon Ni Bheolain!  60K+ in the difference of pay even though both doing exactly the same job.

Then there is the Financial Officers getting paid less.

What is this 'unpaid' work you are talking about that has been removed from the reckoning?
I think the reason women give for working less hours is that they have to leave at 5pm to collect the children from the creche!

Brian Dobson has been in the job for about 15 years more than Sharon Ni Bheolain. The discrepancy could easily be accounted for annual pay rises and rewarding years of service. He is also very close to retirement age (if he hasn't already retired) so it isn't unreasonable to be on a higher salary. Ni Bheolain also left the post for a while in 2013 so didn't offer continuous service unlike Dobson. Just because you are a woman doesn't give you an automatic right to the same salary as your peers, you must work for it like everyone else. There are more female news readers in RTE than male ones so if anything it appears as if her gender may have had a positive impact on her career trajectory.

OECD don't break down the figures for unpaid work but it presumably relates to charity work, care positions etc. The stats are all on the OECD website easily attainable.

I have worked in the financial services industry for 20 years, women do not get paid less at all in this industry, you are talking out of your hat.

Only an idiot concludes that salary discrepancies automatically equate to discrimination.

Seemingly Eurostat do!

The gender pay gap in Ireland is 13.9% according to Eurostat, less than the EU average of 16.7% but still a significant gap. Reporting this gap can lead to concerns that women are “working for free” one month of every year or that women are earning less simply by virtue of being born female. The reality is it’s not that simple.

The gender pay gap refers to the difference between what is earned on average by women and men, based on average gross hourly earnings of all paid employees. It compares the pay received by all working women and by all working men; not only the pay of women and men in same or similar jobs, with the same working pattern or with similar competencies, qualifications or experience, but all the men and all the women working in an organisation. It does not indicate or mean discrimination, or an absence of equal pay for equal value work

Women may not spend more hours in the workplace, thats because they take on a bigger role as carers which is unpaid.

Good article here from IBEC which goes through the reasons.

http://agenda.ibec.ie/1swevkdzawj

Now Guns, stop talking Poopie!

The Great Aukster wrote:Sin é - I have not quoted your post because it contained a defamatory allegation that should not be perpetuated.

Twitter isn't the only social media in existence, nor the only means of sending messages for that matter. When someone has been verbally abused and physically threatened to the point where they cannot go out in public without fear of confrontation - is it not reasonable to consider that as being hounded out?

It's interesting you accept the word of one person who "seems to have it in for her" making a scurrilous and unproven allegation against DF. Isn't is also ironic that a woman (presumably feminist?) should consider an unproven scurrilous accusation against a woman to be justifiable, yet an unproven scurrilous accusation against a man to be a miscarriage of justice - where's the equality in that?

I'd just like to know who exactly is hounding her out of Northern Ireland and why she is being hounded out. There were plenty of leery comments about her looks doing the rounds (males from what I could see). I could see why she would be hounded out by those and would want to get away from them. Lets not forget who sent the photo taken by PJ captioned ''Love Belfast Sluts'' which ended up in the pages of the tabloids with some more photos from that night of the party. The 'mob' didn't do that.

Sin é wrote:

The gender pay gap in Ireland is 13.9% according to Eurostat, less than the EU average of 16.7% but still a significant gap. Reporting this gap can lead to concerns that women are “working for free” one month of every year or that women are earning less simply by virtue of being born female. The reality is it’s not that simple.

The gender pay gap refers to the difference between what is earned on average by women and men, based on average gross hourly earnings of all paid employees. It compares the pay received by all working women and by all working men; not only the pay of women and men in same or similar jobs, with the same working pattern or with similar competencies, qualifications or experience, but all the men and all the women working in an organisation. It does not indicate or mean discrimination, or an absence of equal pay for equal value work

Women may not spend more hours in the workplace, thats because they take on a bigger role as carers which is unpaid.

Good article here from IBEC which goes through the reasons.

http://agenda.ibec.ie/1swevkdzawj

Now Guns, stop talking Poopie!

I read the IBEC article. The figures that IBEC are quoting are based on average gross hours of all employees rather than breaking it down on a average per gender ratio. So they are clearly very misleading.

Surely the key point in the IBEC article is:

It does not indicate or mean discrimination, or an absence of equal pay for equal value work

Even if it were true that overall women are paid less per hour, which it is not the biggest difference in overall salaries is accounted for by the top salaries, CEOs, directors, business owners.

There are lots of reasons why you see less women than men at the top, very few relate to gender discrimination. Women are obviously more likely to take unpaid work, part time work or stay at home. Therefore there is always going to be a smaller pool of qualified women for the top jobs than men. As mentioned before it takes a very specific person that is willing to sacrifice everything else in their life to work consistently 80 hours per week to hold these top jobs. There is no doubt women can hold such jobs I would doubt whether the same quantity of women to men want to.

Yes it is correct that women take on more unpaid jobs as carers but that is a choice.

Sin é wrote:

The Great Aukster wrote:Sin é - I have not quoted your post because it contained a defamatory allegation that should not be perpetuated.

Twitter isn't the only social media in existence, nor the only means of sending messages for that matter. When someone has been verbally abused and physically threatened to the point where they cannot go out in public without fear of confrontation - is it not reasonable to consider that as being hounded out?

It's interesting you accept the word of one person who "seems to have it in for her" making a scurrilous and unproven allegation against DF. Isn't is also ironic that a woman (presumably feminist?) should consider an unproven scurrilous accusation against a woman to be justifiable, yet an unproven scurrilous accusation against a man to be a miscarriage of justice - where's the equality in that?

I'd just like to know who exactly is hounding her out of Northern Ireland and why she is being hounded out. There were plenty of leery comments about her looks doing the rounds (males from what I could see). I could see why she would be hounded out by those and would want to get away from them. Lets not forget who sent the photo taken by PJ captioned ''Love Belfast Sluts'' which ended up in the pages of the tabloids with some more photos from that night of the party. The 'mob' didn't do that.

Considering the protest against the players in the Republic of Ireland was more vociferous than that in Northern Ireland and DF is perceived to have helped them, it is the whole island she is leaving - just like Jackson and Olding. There are many employers in Ireland who would treat her just as toxic as the IRFU have treated Jackson and Olding. They don't care that she told the truth, just that she is now recognisable - so why take the risk that her presence might offend someone?

As you say the 'mob' weren't hounding her when the photos were taken nor when the caption was added - no one outside her circle was paying any interest. Chronologically it was only after her testimony that harassment began. There are obviously some who do not believe in the word 'reasonable', but it is surely feasible to correlate the onset of abusive messages with those who ironically didn't #believeher? Further it would seem the only example you can find of someone who  "seems to have it in for her" is female, so why would you think DF is being hounded by men?

This is the most sensible article I have seen on the trial:

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/ulster-rugby/ewan-mackenna-sacking-jackson-and-olding-was-symptomtackling-and-disease-avoidance-36825959.html

and for those slating the "Southern Media" yes it is published in a Southern newspaper.

Interestingly, the above article questions the hypocracy of the IRFU not to address the Munster threesome but hey Munster players are perfect.

Its a bit late them getting anything fair in the media.

I think a part of it was an element in the very vocal I believe her campaign. It scared anyone to come out in support of them or the legal process as they could be labeled by some as supporting r**ists putting down womens rights etc. No one wanted to be linked to or support them in case there name got linked. This was where we expected Ulster Rugby to stand up for them when noone else publicity would and they let us down.

Kingshu wrote:Its a bit late them getting anything fair in the media.

I think a part of it was an element in the very vocal I believe her campaign. It scared anyone to come out in support of them or the legal process as they could be labeled by some as supporting r**ists putting down womens rights etc. No one wanted to be linked to or support them in case there name got linked. This was where we expected Ulster Rugby to stand up for them when noone else publicity would and they let us down.

Do you have examples of the fair reporting in the North?

Yes, womens groups have too much power in Ireland. Feminism has overshot the mark at this stage and tends to get in the way of logic and fairness a lot lately. George Hook's sacking an excellent example prior to the rugby trial. Women groups are fine as is their right to protest and have an opinion however, its very concerning when people start losing their jobs because their opinion is contrary to increasingly popular opinions expressed by these groups. Opposing opinions must always be allowed.

There is an odious culture of emotion/sponsorship driven justice creeping in.

Always allowed an opinion. Not immune to responses.

This is such an explosive subject, that I'm cautious of getting on this thread.

Still, I wonder whether people believe these players have viable careers elsewhere? The idea seems to be that they can get on with their rugby if they are away from Ireland.

Early indications seem to be that English clubs are cautious. Sale have taken on a lot of players with bad reputations - O'Connor, Cipriani and Yarde for instance - but not one involved with that kind of trial.

France seems like an easier place to seek cover, since the language barrier means there's a less direct coverage. However, France isn't North Korea. Anyone can read on the web what's hanging over these guys, and it won't just disappear. French clubs are just as concerned about their reputations as anyone else.

At some point, someone in rugby is going to offer these guys second chance. They were found not guilty but they now have to re-establish their credentials as honourable men. Overseas clubs might wonder whether its worth the trouble, if Irish clubs aren't going to take the risk.

Rugby Fan wrote:I wonder whether people believe these players have viable careers elsewhere? The idea seems to be that they can get on with their rugby if they are away from Ireland.

Their Test careers are over, that is certain. With the all pervasive nature of the internet, they can't go anywhere on the planet without their past going with them. Why would any club take them on, and risk their sponsors being bombarded with hate mail? Those they have alienated could be just as vindictive to sponsors in Japan or France as Ireland.
Maybe they will get reduced contracts because of their talent - that they will be bound to take because in Ireland they won't get any sort of employment (including that outside rugby).

In soccer, Ched Evans was had several talks with clubs after he was released from jail. The controversy and protests meant he was not hired BUT he was at the time a guilty man. On being acquitted at the retrial he gained a contract quite quickly but at a low level, then after a year was back at Sheffield United.

Things will not be easy for these two, but away from Ireland there will be opportunities - but maybe not great ones.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but can't you re-assign to another country's national side if you have long enough residency there?

I'm sure I've heard of somebody who has played for two national sides...

Not sure if I'm correct, or how long you have to reside... but the boys are still fairly young.

Italy?

It's to do with rugby sevens and was brought in for the Olympics.

Ah ok! So they could play 7s elsewhere but not 15s? gotcha.

clivemcl wrote:Tell me if I'm wrong, but can't you re-assign to another country's national side if you have long enough residency there?

I'm sure I've heard of somebody who has played for two national sides...

Not sure if I'm correct, or how long you have to reside... but the boys are still fairly young.

Italy?

No you cant - there have been, in the past, exceptional cases to do with second tier nations but even that seems to be blocked now.

And neither should you be allowed - makes a system full of loop holes even worse

No they would qualify for 15s as well Clive but the rule was brought in for 7s. There were some rumours both Armitage brothers were being considered for France a few years back.

All clubs are smart too give them the cold shoulder either way. Drive their price down. I’d make them a cheeky offer if I was a French D2 side.

Jackson will not be playing second grade rugby - someone will decide he is worth a punt at the top level be it T14 or the Aviva

I agree. They're good players, probably going cheap, so someone will snap them up.