The Sponsors and Advertising Discussion Thread

[the-goon]

First topic message reminder :

There will always be good reason to discuss the influence and the effects of corporate money input sport.

[rodders]

Fair enough Rodders, your call.  

Best be on safe side with that

Re: Diageo I just don't see the story here, they want to protect their image for commercial reasons but that itself dispels the myth that it is just a small minority who have concerns. It's the fact that there are potential loss of significant profit that is prompting these brands to act.  

Yeah but don't dress it up as not aligning with your values.

Fair enough but that is not really surprising is it?

[Collapse2005]

No its not at all

[LeinsterFan4life]

what baffles me is why they didnt engage with LI before the signing was made if they are so very concerned. Load of nonsense. THe net result is (hopefully) less sales for Guinness but a lot more pressure on Jackson to perform. Good luck to him.

Stand the sponsors obviously are reacting to public response, which is what they are entitled to do.

I would say it was LI who made the mistake in not consulting their key stakeholders before entering negotiations with Jackson.  

They offered to meet Diageo but the offer wasn't taken up. I would argue its a vocal minority that are causing the hassle. I know a few LI fans and certainly they seem to feel it isnt being driven by the vast majority of their fanbase. Guinness absolutely have the right to remove their brand from wherever they choose but dont dress it up. The reality is they had no bother compromising their 'values' but waited to see what the comeback would be.

Apparently that is false and it was Diageo that refused the meeting, I'm seeing two different stories there. Guinness sponsor James Haskell's podcast and if what I'm reading is true, he has a much worse history with women.

[RDW]

All - please be mindful that as this is a public forum we need to be very careful on what is said on here, particularly on issues like are being discussed here. We will not hesitate to remove posts if needed and will always take a very cautious view on this.

As such if we can try and keep the discussion on this rugby related and keep comments relating to the trial and subsequent faillout etc factual.

[SecretFly]

Fly please lets be careful here where this is going, there was no suggestion of false allegations in the verdict.  

Jackson was found Not Guilty in the verdict.  By speeches made on these pages over the months, and feminist pronouncements outside, we are meant to accept the non-finality of that verdict, the hint-hint wink-wink possibilities that he got away with something...and people are still allowed protest against a man who walked into the court an Innocent man and walked out of it Not Guilty.

So if you're going spread the red ink, rodders, make sure you pick up the sly tones of projected 'belief' rather than compliance with 'verdict' from others on these pages.

I know what I'm doing and I've made no assertions about the woman.  I've asked questions about suppositions as they relate to the case.  Such questions are allowed in a free society or else discussion on Jackson's topic would be banned.  He's a man who some openly express should accept his punishment of decisions made on commercial grounds yet he is Guilty of nothing to be punished for.

The facts are Jackson is Not Guilty of a crime he had been accused of.  He was named, the woman wasn't.  His life is being sullied for actions that under other circumstances his attackers would be marching for - the right to sexual identity AND sexual expression.  The freedom not to have society dictate sexual behaviour so long as that sexual behaviour is not recognised as a crime.

[SecretFly]

All - please be mindful that as this is a public forum we need to be very careful on what is said on here, particularly on issues like are being discussed here. We will not hesitate to remove posts if needed and will always take a very cautious view on this.

As such if we can try and keep the discussion on this rugby related and keep comments relating to the trial and subsequent faillout etc factual.

Diageo has made public a rugby decision not based on rugby but on a criminal trial. It's fair to expect that such a public decision about rugby but not based on the game but a criminal trial, would be discussed in term of the trial

Diageo are free to make their decisions - none of my concern. But a discussion on levels or otherwise of hypocrisy would ultimately return to the focal point. The player was found Not Guilty of a crime yet Diageo made a decision based on public pressure hinting that he still might be.

[RDW]

Secretfly our comments were not addressed to you or anyone in particularly - just a general message acknowledging this is a controversial topic and asking everyone to keep this in mind on what is a public forum.

[SecretFly]

I thought it an energetic and controlled debate, RDW.

But so be it. Maybe then Diageo should have found a method of just dropping their sponsorship quietly, without fanfare. They made it a public topic...for their own commercial reasons - in other words, free advertising slot

Anyway, I'll move on to another topic.

[Standulstermen]

what baffles me is why they didnt engage with LI before the signing was made if they are so very concerned. Load of nonsense. THe net result is (hopefully) less sales for Guinness but a lot more pressure on Jackson to perform. Good luck to him.

Stand the sponsors obviously are reacting to public response, which is what they are entitled to do.

I would say it was LI who made the mistake in not consulting their key stakeholders before entering negotiations with Jackson.  

They offered to meet Diageo but the offer wasn't taken up. I would argue its a vocal minority that are causing the hassle. I know a few LI fans and certainly they seem to feel it isnt being driven by the vast majority of their fanbase. Guinness absolutely have the right to remove their brand from wherever they choose but dont dress it up. The reality is they had no bother compromising their 'values' but waited to see what the comeback would be.

Apparently that is false and it was Diageo that refused the meeting, I'm seeing two different stories there. Guinness sponsor James Haskell's podcast and if what I'm reading is true, he has a much worse history with women.

Think you've misread me there Leinster. Im agreeing with you. Diageo didnt take up LI's offer. The Haskell thing is interesting. I dont know the ins and outs of it but they even discussed it on their podcast whilst drinking Guinness.

[Sin é]

Yeah cause Diageo really care about the irresponsible use of alcohol. Oh jeepers.

They have to, otherwise they will be stopped promoting their brands. Regina Doherty TD on twitter this morning.

Watching @RTE_PrimeTime on plus 1 - the only thing that is crystal clear to me from Diageo decision today, is that no alcoholic drink has any place in sports sponsorship

'Guinness Clear' ad campaign launched by BOD and Dayglo.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=907B0pAed_k

Former Irish international rugby player Brian O’Driscoll and former English international and World Cup winning rugby player Lawrence Dallaglio were at St. James’s Gate to launch the #GuinnessClear campaign and encourage all rugby fans to drink responsibly throughout the GUINNESS SIX NATIONS by drinking GUINNESS Clear to moderate their drinking choices.

By drinking plenty of water at a social occasion, the body is kept hydrated and it helps people to moderate their drinking. Water is a positive choice and should be celebrated.

Corporate mumbo jumbo. Like I said earlier Diageo rely on people becoming addicted to the stuff in order to fund their billion dollar investments into other drinks brands. I'll stand with LI and Ulster fans and boycott their stuff.

Guinness was bought by Diageo. Guinness is still managed from Dublin. The Guinness name has a long association with philantrophy / social conscience which makes it different from other alcohol brands.

[SecretFly]

Let's talk about something safe.

Men!  And why Rugby should ban them!

Can't hold their drink!  Can't read a map to the Toilet!  Assault rugby posts without trial.  Boo the opposition off the field!  Jeer refs!  Jump ships!  Throw dwarves!  Sing out of tune!  Get their kit off for any little excuse...or big one if you place the props wisely.... and drink tons of f**king Beer ( no specific product named to deny them more free advertising)

Yep, we're a f**king disgrace to the game.  Stand up World Rugby.  We have to be banned pronto!  World Rugby is evading the decision they know must come -

be MANLY for f**ks sake!!!!


Oops!  

[LondonTiger]

It is over 20 years since Guinness and Grand Met merged to form Diageo. Sorry but trying to claim Diageo are bad and Guinness are good is inappropriate especially considering Diageo did not exist before that merger in 97.


With reference to Guinness using Haskell, the allegations against him never resulted in a charge mainly because of the video evidence available that demonstrated the allegation was not supported by fact.

[SecretFly]

Guinness was bought by Diageo. Guinness is still managed from Dublin. The Guinness name has a long association with philantrophy / social conscience which makes it different from other alcohol brands.

Jesus, Sin.... I spilled my non-Guinness beer!

How much are you still on to pass that guff off? Go on, you're still on the payroll, ain't you.

[SecretFly]

It is over 20 years since Guinness and Grand Met merged to form Diageo. Sorry but trying to claim Diageo are bad and Guinness are good is inappropriate .

But....but....but you can't drink Diageo.

[Sin é]

It is over 20 years since Guinness and Grand Met merged to form Diageo. Sorry but trying to claim Diageo are bad and Guinness are good is inappropriate especially considering Diageo did not exist before that merger in 97.


With reference to Guinness using Haskell, the allegations against him never resulted in a charge mainly because of the video evidence available that demonstrated the allegation was not supported by fact.

I'm not trying to claim Diageo are bad. Its a merger of Grand Met and Guinness. Guinness in Ireland has a great reputation. The family were known for their philantrophy and social conscience and up to about 20 years ago, Guinness would be regarded as one of the best places to work and were known for looking after their employees well (providing housing, medical care etc for all of their employees). They will not let the antics of those lads tarnish their brand.

As well as that, there is a lot of pressure being put on Government to ban drink/gambling companies sponsoring sport. Its happened in France and will happen here if binge drinking/gambling is glamorised by sports stars.

[Sin é]

Guinness was bought by Diageo. Guinness is still managed from Dublin. The Guinness name has a long association with philantrophy / social conscience which makes it different from other alcohol brands.

Jesus, Sin.... I spilled my non-Guinness beer!

How much are you still on to pass that guff off?  Go on, you're still on the payroll, ain't you.

Unfortunately, I'm not Fly! Wish I was.

[LeinsterFan4life]

what baffles me is why they didnt engage with LI before the signing was made if they are so very concerned. Load of nonsense. THe net result is (hopefully) less sales for Guinness but a lot more pressure on Jackson to perform. Good luck to him.

Stand the sponsors obviously are reacting to public response, which is what they are entitled to do.

I would say it was LI who made the mistake in not consulting their key stakeholders before entering negotiations with Jackson.  

They offered to meet Diageo but the offer wasn't taken up. I would argue its a vocal minority that are causing the hassle. I know a few LI fans and certainly they seem to feel it isnt being driven by the vast majority of their fanbase. Guinness absolutely have the right to remove their brand from wherever they choose but dont dress it up. The reality is they had no bother compromising their 'values' but waited to see what the comeback would be.

Apparently that is false and it was Diageo that refused the meeting, I'm seeing two different stories there. Guinness sponsor James Haskell's podcast and if what I'm reading is true, he has a much worse history with women.

Think you've misread me there Leinster. Im agreeing with you. Diageo didnt take up LI's offer. The Haskell thing is interesting. I dont know the ins and outs of it but they even discussed it on their podcast whilst drinking Guinness.

You're right stand I must of quoted the wrong person there apologies.

[SecretFly]

As well as that, there is a lot of pressure being put on Government to ban drink/gambling companies sponsoring sport. Its happened in France and will happen here if binge drinking/gambling is glamorised by sports stars.

In France they have non-jury days-long trials to 'prove' a man guilty of murder in another jurisdiction some 20 years or so ago.  Pardon me if I don't exactly bow to French ideals on the creation and observance of law.

But THAT is another story, of course.  Not for these pages unfortunately [/quote]

[clivemcl]

what baffles me is why they didnt engage with LI before the signing was made if they are so very concerned. Load of nonsense. THe net result is (hopefully) less sales for Guinness but a lot more pressure on Jackson to perform. Good luck to him.

Stand the sponsors obviously are reacting to public response, which is what they are entitled to do.

I would say it was LI who made the mistake in not consulting their key stakeholders before entering negotiations with Jackson.  

The only real noise is predictably coming from a feminist group based in Belfast. Nice to see LI show some balls and see through the nonsense.

That is simply not true, concerns are much more wide spread including parents of members of the underage teams.

How much Guinness do you think Belfast feminist drink?

Concerns are being directed to the sponsors?

It's one thing if LI want to ignore supposed unhappiness from fans, but we are talking about sponsorship here and whether or not their moral objection is sincere.

You think the sponsors sincerely feel this way and are withdrawing in support of LI fans who are unhappy???

Being on a shirt and a few billboards brings them *some* extra profit through advertising at a considerable cost. Being in the news as a valiant feminist supporting white horse obviously has more marketing power, and in doing so, they in fact save themselves a LOT of money.

[Collapse2005]

I thought feminism was about equality? Not everyone has a fundamental human right to be considered innocent unless proven guilty apparently.

That's why I will never consider myself a feminist because they tend to promote a la carte equality rather than the real deal.

I would caveat that by saying that the feminist movement has done good things in the past but the time has surely come for a movement that is much more inclusive.

[LeinsterFan4life]

what baffles me is why they didnt engage with LI before the signing was made if they are so very concerned. Load of nonsense. THe net result is (hopefully) less sales for Guinness but a lot more pressure on Jackson to perform. Good luck to him.

Stand the sponsors obviously are reacting to public response, which is what they are entitled to do.

I would say it was LI who made the mistake in not consulting their key stakeholders before entering negotiations with Jackson.  

The only real noise is predictably coming from a feminist group based in Belfast. Nice to see LI show some balls and see through the nonsense.

That is simply not true, concerns are much more wide spread including parents of members of the underage teams.

How much Guinness do you think Belfast feminist drink?

Concerns are being directed to the sponsors?

It's one thing if LI want to ignore supposed unhappiness from fans, but we are talking about sponsorship here and whether or not their moral objection is sincere.

You think the sponsors sincerely feel this way and are withdrawing in support of LI fans who are unhappy???

Being on a shirt and a few billboards brings them *some* extra profit through advertising at a considerable cost. Being in the news as a valiant feminist supporting white horse obviously has more marketing power, and in doing so, they in fact save themselves a LOT of money.

They also could be trying make up for a couple of adds they have put up that have angered Feminists in the past. I can't link them as I'm on my phone but a guy on the LI fans forum has just shared them. Let's face they have gotten more exposure in the last couple of days with this that all their years with LI. It's smart business on their part.

[clivemcl]

And we can't have anonymity of person charged or have the trial in private because well... apparently the whole male gender on juries and legal staff can't be trusted so it's imperative that every detail (apart from victims identity of course) be made public so that everyone can quite freely ignore the judicial verdict and just make their own judgements. And as part of the judgement the public are allowed to make, private correspondence is read out, and witnesses called so we can analyse the whole character of the person on trial, but the character of the victim apparently has no bearing...

[clivemcl]

what baffles me is why they didnt engage with LI before the signing was made if they are so very concerned. Load of nonsense. THe net result is (hopefully) less sales for Guinness but a lot more pressure on Jackson to perform. Good luck to him.

Stand the sponsors obviously are reacting to public response, which is what they are entitled to do.

I would say it was LI who made the mistake in not consulting their key stakeholders before entering negotiations with Jackson.  

The only real noise is predictably coming from a feminist group based in Belfast. Nice to see LI show some balls and see through the nonsense.

That is simply not true, concerns are much more wide spread including parents of members of the underage teams.

How much Guinness do you think Belfast feminist drink?

Concerns are being directed to the sponsors?

It's one thing if LI want to ignore supposed unhappiness from fans, but we are talking about sponsorship here and whether or not their moral objection is sincere.

You think the sponsors sincerely feel this way and are withdrawing in support of LI fans who are unhappy???

Being on a shirt and a few billboards brings them *some* extra profit through advertising at a considerable cost. Being in the news as a valiant feminist supporting white horse obviously has more marketing power, and in doing so, they in fact save themselves a LOT of money.

They also could be trying make up for a couple of adds they have put up that have angered Feminists in the past. I can't link them as I'm on my phone but a guy on the LI fans forum has just shared them. Let's face they have gotten more exposure in the last couple of days with this that all their years with LI. It's smart business  on their part.

Smart yes, but very very callous. I don't believe for a second this company have any moral hang ups about the lady who made the allegations not being believed.

[SecretFly]

Yes it is Leinsterfan. Smart business and cynical business.  The problem (or beautiful thing if you smirk at it all) with constant in-your-face virtue signaling from all sectors of society is that everything has a peak.  People begin to see the genuine reasons behind the circus act.  And I think slowly but surely more and more people are realising much of this is just opportunism, cynical business practice and blunt insincerity.

So the peak will be achieved and then the process will be reversed.  There will be diminishing returns for these stunts.  Maybe that process has already begun when Gillette played their stunts.  But Yep, I look forward to the day when most people yawn away stunts like Diageo carried out.

[SecretFly]

And we can't have anonymity of person charged or have the trial in private because well... apparently the whole male gender on juries and legal staff can't be trusted so it's imperative that every detail (apart from victims identity of course) be made public so that everyone can quite freely ignore the judicial verdict and just make their own judgements. And as part of the judgement the public are allowed to make, private correspondence is read out, and witnesses called so we can analyse the whole character of the person on trial, but the character of the victim apparently has no bearing...

[Collapse2005]

And we can't have anonymity of person charged or have the trial in private because well... apparently the whole male gender on juries and legal staff can't be trusted so it's imperative that every detail (apart from victims identity of course) be made public so that everyone can quite freely ignore the judicial verdict and just make their own judgements. And as part of the judgement the public are allowed to make, private correspondence is read out, and witnesses called so we can analyse the whole character of the person on trial, but the character of the victim apparently has no bearing...

Male juries are apparently statistically more likely to find accusers guilty of r___

[Heaf]

what baffles me is why they didnt engage with LI before the signing was made if they are so very concerned. Load of nonsense. THe net result is (hopefully) less sales for Guinness but a lot more pressure on Jackson to perform. Good luck to him.

Stand the sponsors obviously are reacting to public response, which is what they are entitled to do.

I would say it was LI who made the mistake in not consulting their key stakeholders before entering negotiations with Jackson.  

The only real noise is predictably coming from a feminist group based in Belfast. Nice to see LI show some balls and see through the nonsense.

That is simply not true, concerns are much more wide spread including parents of members of the underage teams.

How much Guinness do you think Belfast feminist drink?

Concerns are being directed to the sponsors?

It's one thing if LI want to ignore supposed unhappiness from fans, but we are talking about sponsorship here and whether or not their moral objection is sincere.

You think the sponsors sincerely feel this way and are withdrawing in support of LI fans who are unhappy???

Being on a shirt and a few billboards brings them *some* extra profit through advertising at a considerable cost. Being in the news as a valiant feminist supporting white horse obviously has more marketing power, and in doing so, they in fact save themselves a LOT of money.

They also could be trying make up for a couple of adds they have put up that have angered Feminists in the past. I can't link them as I'm on my phone but a guy on the LI fans forum has just shared them. Let's face they have gotten more exposure in the last couple of days with this that all their years with LI. It's smart business  on their part.

Smart yes, but very very callous. I don't believe for a second this company have any moral hang ups about the lady who made the allegations not being believed.

Or maybe not so smart - it's possible more people will feel they are cynically exploiting the situation for publicity and boycott Guinness, as people tend to react more strongly to perceived hypocrisy, than any gains they make from extra sales from their virtual signalling ... if they had genuine concerns they may have been better to withdraw quietly.

[LeinsterFan4life]

Yes it is Leinsterfan. Smart business and cynical business.  The problem (or beautiful thing if you smirk at it all) with constant in-your-face virtue signaling from all sectors of society is that everything has a peak.  People begin to see the genuine reasons behind the circus act.  And I think slowly but surely more and more people are realising much of this is just opportunism, cynical business practice and blunt insincerity.

So the peak will be achieved and then the process will be reversed.  There will be diminishing returns for these stunts.  Maybe that process has already begun when Gillette played their stunts.  But Yep, I look forward to the day when most people yawn away stunts like Diageo carried out.

I think your right about the peak and we are already seeing companies paying the price for it especially in the gaming, film and tv show industry. People are getting sick and tired of identitiy politics being shoved into every form of entertainment when they have always been a means of people having a brief escape from reality.

[Sin é]

And we can't have anonymity of person charged or have the trial in private because well... apparently the whole male gender on juries and legal staff can't be trusted so it's imperative that every detail (apart from victims identity of course) be made public so that everyone can quite freely ignore the judicial verdict and just make their own judgements. And as part of the judgement the public are allowed to make, private correspondence is read out, and witnesses called so we can analyse the whole character of the person on trial, but the character of the victim apparently has no bearing...

There is a different system in the Republic. Anonymity is only removed with the approval of the accuser. As well as that, the court case is not open to the public (just family members of those involved and agreed by everyone). That trial in Belfast was a complete circus. I'd be blaming the system in the UK rather than the Belfast 'feministas'. And that system is to be maintained I believe. The cynics say its to protect the accused as no victim would put themselves through what that woman was put through in that trial.

[rodders]

Fly please lets be careful here where this is going, there was no suggestion of false allegations in the verdict.  

Jackson was found Not Guilty in the verdict.

He was and that is a fact but that doesn't assert that the alleged victim and PPS witness was not telling the truth which is what you are alluding to, intentionally or not.

[Collapse2005]

It doesn't really protect the accused though if everyone knows who they are too.

[Heaf]

what baffles me is why they didnt engage with LI before the signing was made if they are so very concerned. Load of nonsense. THe net result is (hopefully) less sales for Guinness but a lot more pressure on Jackson to perform. Good luck to him.

Stand the sponsors obviously are reacting to public response, which is what they are entitled to do.

I would say it was LI who made the mistake in not consulting their key stakeholders before entering negotiations with Jackson.  

The only real noise is predictably coming from a feminist group based in Belfast. Nice to see LI show some balls and see through the nonsense.

That is simply not true, concerns are much more wide spread including parents of members of the underage teams.

How much Guinness do you think Belfast feminist drink?

Concerns are being directed to the sponsors?

It's one thing if LI want to ignore supposed unhappiness from fans, but we are talking about sponsorship here and whether or not their moral objection is sincere.

You think the sponsors sincerely feel this way and are withdrawing in support of LI fans who are unhappy???

Being on a shirt and a few billboards brings them *some* extra profit through advertising at a considerable cost. Being in the news as a valiant feminist supporting white horse obviously has more marketing power, and in doing so, they in fact save themselves a LOT of money.

They also could be trying make up for a couple of adds they have put up that have angered Feminists in the past. I can't link them as I'm on my phone but a guy on the LI fans forum has just shared them. Let's face they have gotten more exposure in the last couple of days with this that all their years with LI. It's smart business  on their part.

values?

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/leisure/8667035/Diageo-pays-16m-to-settle-bribery-claims.html

https://www.jncconsultancy.com/sap-vs-diageo-in-54m-indirect-access-court-case/

http://feministgal.blogspot.com/2009/09/disgusting-guinness-commercial.html

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/r***-crisis-network-slams-r***-victim-blaming-ads-667305.html

[SecretFly]

I think your right about the peak and we are already seeing companies paying the price for it especially in the gaming, film and tv show industry. People are getting sick and tired of identitiy politics being shoved into every form of entertainment when they have always been a means of people having a brief escape from reality.

My only moments to get away from 'reality' now is to turn off all electronic gadgets and go do some real work - gardening.  

Never liked gardening but in recent years it's the only time I get to feel real.  I find myself pausing and looking at cloud features, and sunsets.... and Christ it's a beautiful quiet planet when it wants to be - when you turn off the drone of constant moaning, constant politics, never ending gender-identity, gender-rights, gender exclusion, global warming/cooling propaganda dripping out of everything, whether it's children's cartoons, cookery shows, science documentaries, fictional drama....

Yep... my conclusion, a man belongs outside for as long as he can tolerate it - couch domesticity really doesn't suit his gender.  And listening to endless crap on TV and radio and internet just fries our precious bodily fluids!

[Sin é]

what baffles me is why they didnt engage with LI before the signing was made if they are so very concerned. Load of nonsense. THe net result is (hopefully) less sales for Guinness but a lot more pressure on Jackson to perform. Good luck to him.

Stand the sponsors obviously are reacting to public response, which is what they are entitled to do.

I would say it was LI who made the mistake in not consulting their key stakeholders before entering negotiations with Jackson.  

The only real noise is predictably coming from a feminist group based in Belfast. Nice to see LI show some balls and see through the nonsense.

That is simply not true, concerns are much more wide spread including parents of members of the underage teams.

How much Guinness do you think Belfast feminist drink?

Concerns are being directed to the sponsors?

It's one thing if LI want to ignore supposed unhappiness from fans, but we are talking about sponsorship here and whether or not their moral objection is sincere.

You think the sponsors sincerely feel this way and are withdrawing in support of LI fans who are unhappy???

Being on a shirt and a few billboards brings them *some* extra profit through advertising at a considerable cost. Being in the news as a valiant feminist supporting white horse obviously has more marketing power, and in doing so, they in fact save themselves a LOT of money.

They also could be trying make up for a couple of adds they have put up that have angered Feminists in the past. I can't link them as I'm on my phone but a guy on the LI fans forum has just shared them. Let's face they have gotten more exposure in the last couple of days with this that all their years with LI. It's smart business  on their part.

Smart yes, but very very callous. I don't believe for a second this company have any moral hang ups about the lady who made the allegations not being believed.

But its what their customers think is important to them. In the same way they know that Katie Taylor is an admired sportsperson and role model by nearly everyone, they know that Conor McGregor is a hero to the 18-24s (everyone else thinks he is a complete prat!), and that Roy Keane is admired by most males, particularly sportspeople, they know what people think of Jackson.

[Collapse2005]

Roy Keane isn't admired by most males. There are plenty of people who think he is a utter tool including me.

Katie Taylor is grand but I feel sorry for her more than anything. I suspect she has never had an opportunity to be herself given the background she comes from.

Agree on McGregor though, absolute knacker.

Diageo know what a fairly small insignificant feminist group thinks of Jackson, I doubt they know what everyone thinks of Jackson.

[Sin é]

Just for the record, the IRFU's statement as to why Olding and Jackson were released.

In a statement announcing their departure, the IRFU said: “Following a review, conducted in the aftermath of recent court proceedings, the Irish Rugby Football Union and Ulster Rugby have revoked the contracts of Patrick Jackson and Stuart Olding with immediate effect.

In arriving at this decision, the Irish Rugby Football Union and Ulster Rugby acknowledge our responsibility and commitment to the core values of the game: respect, inclusivity and integrity.

“It has been agreed, as part of this commitment, to conduct an in-depth review of existing structures and educational programmes, within the game in Ireland, to ensure the importance of these core values is clearly understood, supported and practised at every level of the game.”

This is a the result of research (in ROI):

Nearly 7 in 10 people think the IRFU was right to sack Jackson and Olding
The pair had their rugby contracts revoked in the wake of their acquittal on charges of r***.

A MAJORITY OF Irish people believe that the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU) was right to revoke the contracts of Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding.

According to a poll for RTÉ’s Claire Byrne Live by Amarách Research, just 19% said it wasn’t the correct decision while 69% said it was the right thing to do to terminate the pair’s contracts in the wake of the long-running r*** trial.

The remaining 12% said they didn’t know if the IRFU was correct with its decision.

[Collapse2005]

The IRFU sacked them before the conclusion of the trial pending the outcome which was sensible enough but given the outcome Id imagine quite a significant proportion of people would have changed their view.

[Sin é]

Roy Keane isn't admired by most males. There are plenty of people who think he is a utter tool including me.

He [Roy] is the most admired among Irish males, with particularly strong support in Munster.

Katie Taylor is grand but I feel sorry for her more than anything. I suspect she has never had an opportunity to be herself given the background she comes from.

Agree on McGregor though, absolute knacker.

Diageo know what a fairly small insignificant feminist group thinks of Jackson, I doubt they know what everyone thinks of Jackson.

Here is the rest of the article: Sexton makes the Top 10 now.

https://www.breakingnews.ie/sport/soccer/irelands-most-admired-sports-personalities-roy-keane-rises-conor-mcgregor-falls-and-katie-taylor-remains-number-one-872689.html

As for Jackson, 69% to 19% in favour of giving them the sack (Claire Byrne Live / Amarach Research - 1000 interviewed by telephone).

[Sin é]

The IRFU sacked them before the conclusion of the trial pending the outcome which was sensible enough but given the outcome Id imagine quite a significant proportion of people would have changed their view.

No, they did not sack them before the end of the trial.
Trial verdict: 28 March, 2018.
Sacking: Apr 14, 2018

[SecretFly]

Fly please lets be careful here where this is going, there was no suggestion of false allegations in the verdict.  

Jackson was found Not Guilty in the verdict.

He was and that is a fact but that doesn't assert that the alleged victim and PPS witness was not telling the truth which is what you are alluding to, intentionally or not.  

I was alluding to - directly, as I don't shirk, - I was alluding to the truth that women can and have been proven to Lie in court and elsewhere.  I did not at any point directly infer that this woman - in discussion by the very fact that she made the accusation about Jackson - is guilty of lying.  

I said that femininsits who march against or speak out against a man found Not Guilty should reflect on why they think they can accuse him of motives outside the boundary of the court's finding (that he was Not Guilty of R-a-p-e) yet start pointing threatening fingers when the accusers motives are questioned.  

No allegations were made against the woman. Correct.  She was not on trial.  

Allegations were made against Jackson and others.  He was on trial.  He was cleared, despite what some here might suggest was a 'non-clearance' because the judge didn't use the word 'innocent'.  

In short, he is innocent and named.  She is innocent and not named.

He continues to be smeared by these whispers that He was not being honest, that He is potentially a criminal who got away with something, that his nature is depraved.  These are the allusions thrown at a man who was found Not Guilty in a court of law; ........ allusions, intentional or not.

Is the woman supported by feminists because they believe her to be telling the truth or because she is simply a 'she'?  I know how to protect myself and this site from libel, and nothing I have said is closer to it than anything anyone has said here or externally about Paddy Jackson.

[Collapse2005]

The IRFU sacked them before the conclusion of the trial pending the outcome which was sensible enough but given the outcome Id imagine quite a significant proportion of people would have changed their view.

No, they did not sack them before the end of the trial.
Trial verdict: 28 March, 2018.
Sacking: Apr 14, 2018

Fair enough but weren't they suspending pending the outcome before the trial?

[rodders]

This is a the result of research (in ROI):

Nearly 7 in 10 people think the IRFU was right to sack Jackson and Olding
The pair had their rugby contracts revoked in the wake of their acquittal on charges of r***.

A MAJORITY OF Irish people believe that the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU) was right to revoke the contracts of Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding.

According to a poll for RTÉ’s Claire Byrne Live by Amarách Research, just 19% said it wasn’t the correct decision while 69% said it was the right thing to do to terminate the pair’s contracts in the wake of the long-running r*** trial.

The remaining 12% said they didn’t know if the IRFU was correct with its decision.

This is the point, it is completely disingenuous to say only feminist have an issue with Jackson. It is equivalent to suggesting only homosexuals have an issue with Israel Folou.

[geoff999rugby]

Two observations

1. By all accounts the 8 people who returned to the house/flat (4 men, 4 women) had in excess of 20 units of alchol inside them - out of their heads; so the chance of anyone remember accurately what happened are small.

2. What about some #metoo loyalty to the woman, who was the leading defence witness, in stating nothing untoward happened.
She was hounded out of Ireland as a feminist traitor for giving evidence in a court of law what she believed to be the truth

[rodders]

The IRFU sacked them before the conclusion of the trial pending the outcome which was sensible enough but given the outcome Id imagine quite a significant proportion of people would have changed their view.

No, they did not sack them before the end of the trial.
Trial verdict: 28 March, 2018.
Sacking: Apr 14, 2018

Fair enough but weren't they suspending pending the outcome before the trial?

Legally they couldn't sack them during the trial as may have prejudiced the outcome.

[Sin é]

Fly please lets be careful here where this is going, there was no suggestion of false allegations in the verdict.  

Jackson was found Not Guilty in the verdict.

He was and that is a fact but that doesn't assert that the alleged victim and PPS witness was not telling the truth which is what you are alluding to, intentionally or not.  

I was alluding to - directly, as I don't shirk, - I was alluding to the truth that women can and have been proven to Lie in court and elsewhere.  I did not at any point directly infer that this woman - in discussion by the very fact that she made the accusation about Jackson - is guilty of lying.  

I said that femininsits who march against or speak out against a man found Not Guilty should reflect on why they think they can accuse him of motives outside the boundary of the court's finding (that he was Not Guilty of R-a-p-e) yet start pointing threatening fingers when the accusers motives are questioned.  

No allegations were made against the woman. Correct.  She was not on trial.  

Allegations were made against Jackson and others.  He was on trial.  He was cleared, despite what some here might suggest was a 'non-clearance' because the judge didn't use the word 'innocent'.  

In short, he is innocent and named.  She is innocent and not named.

He continues to be smeared by these whispers that He was not being honest, that He is potentially a criminal who got away with something, that his nature is depraved.  These are the allusions thrown at a man who was found Not Guilty in a court of law; ........ allusions, intentional or not.

Is the woman supported by feminists because they believe her to be telling the truth or because she is simply a 'she'?  I know how to protect myself and this site from libel, and nothing I have said is closer to it than anything anyone has said here or externally about Paddy Jackson.

For someone who wasn't on trial, she sure spent a lot of the time on the stand being aggressively questioned by four QCs!

By the way, she was named (on social media). People could see her in the court. Everyone knows who she is (and that her mother is a solicitor and father is in the PSNI).

[clivemcl]

In a world where nearly everything is seen to be discrimination, I fail to see how being refused work based upon being charged and tried of a crime is any different. Especially since there was insufficient evidence to say without doubt that the crime happened.

That's what this boils down to. People refusing to believe a court decision and actively calling for clubs/businesses/sponsors to discrimiate against a 'not guilty' person.

They get away with it under the guise of 'core values' to which I assume they mean the foul language and the casual attitude towards sexual activity...

Those who agree with the sponsors and businesses discriminatory actions most likely do not have moral objections to his sexual activities as it fits right in with liberal 2019 life for many.

If it is the content of their language and attitude towards women, then why are no clubs/sponsors/businesses taking issue with Craig Gilroy who said the worst of them all?


Rodders, would you call for the sacking of Gilroy from Ulster? Or does he fit in with Ulster and IRFU core values ok for you??

[geoff999rugby]

This is a the result of research (in ROI):

Nearly 7 in 10 people think the IRFU was right to sack Jackson and Olding
The pair had their rugby contracts revoked in the wake of their acquittal on charges of r***.

A MAJORITY OF Irish people believe that the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU) was right to revoke the contracts of Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding.

According to a poll for RTÉ’s Claire Byrne Live by Amarách Research, just 19% said it wasn’t the correct decision while 69% said it was the right thing to do to terminate the pair’s contracts in the wake of the long-running r*** trial.

The remaining 12% said they didn’t know if the IRFU was correct with its decision.

This is the point, it is completely disingenuous to say only feminist have an issue with Jackson. It is equivalent to suggesting only homosexuals have an issue with Israel Folou.    

Trouble is most are unaware of what was actually stated in court.

For example a belief it was 4 men and 1 women who went back to the house - it wasn't it - there were 4 women
That the worst of the social media posting were by the two players; they weren't. Infact Olding said nothing you could take exception to at all, and Jackson was only guilty of one risky posting
Polls based on ignorance are worthless and merely show how the facts can be distorted to make a point.
You do realise that most of social media is utter garbage and fake news I hope

[Collapse2005]

This is a the result of research (in ROI):

Nearly 7 in 10 people think the IRFU was right to sack Jackson and Olding
The pair had their rugby contracts revoked in the wake of their acquittal on charges of r***.

A MAJORITY OF Irish people believe that the Irish Rugby Football Union (IRFU) was right to revoke the contracts of Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding.

According to a poll for RTÉ’s Claire Byrne Live by Amarách Research, just 19% said it wasn’t the correct decision while 69% said it was the right thing to do to terminate the pair’s contracts in the wake of the long-running r*** trial.

The remaining 12% said they didn’t know if the IRFU was correct with its decision.

This is the point, it is completely disingenuous to say only feminist have an issue with Jackson. It is equivalent to suggesting only homosexuals have an issue with Israel Folou.    

I claimed that to my knowledge only a feminist pressure group has publicly expressed an issue with Jackson. Im sure plenty of people dislike him as well as plenty of people who also believe he should be allowed get on with his life and treated as an innocent person like everyone else.

[SecretFly]

That's what the legal system is, Sin. If you make a serious accusation, you have to support it in court. And the accused' lawyers will certainly try to defend their client...it is an extremely strong accusation to make, an extremely serious crime if proven. The defendant fights for his life.

[clivemcl]

For someone who wasn't on trial, she sure spent a lot of the time on the stand being aggressively questioned by four QCs!

By the way, she was named (on social media). People could see her in the court. Everyone knows who she is (and that her mother is a solicitor and father is in the PSNI).

I don't remember the part where they read out her private communications though to see how she referred to sexual activities or how she felt about encounters with the opposite sex.
Maybe that's because we all know talk is talk, and facts are fact. Unless of course you are looking for more ammunition to support the judgement you have in your head about somebody that helps you tell yourself you are right in the absence of clear evidence.

[Sponsored content]