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.

[Collapse2005]

....and hadn't until the circus that Diageo and the feminists started spooked them...

Real mob rule society we live in right now.  "If you don't join the lynch mob, you might need a lynching yourself....we don't like no sympathisers of an innocent man who we still think ain't innocent coz it's his word against hers."

This will backfire on the sponsors if LI hold their nerve.  And even if they don't and find a way of legally (it'll be difficult) dumping Jackson.  That in itself will cast more public light on what has become a reprehensible witch-hunt dictatorship where political interest groups threaten and cajole until they get their pound of flesh.  Those interest groups want this man to be virtually unemployable - destitute and forgotten.

And dumb sheep who follow these movements with blindfolds in place and placards hoisted, don't even remotely realise or care that they are part of a new McCarthyism - intolerance, faux morality, denial of free speech, with us or against us, blacklisting.... oppression.  The works.

Get a grip.  This is mass induced controlled and orchestrated paranoia on hyperdrive - Orson Welles on radio telling the public that the Martians had landed.

Get a grip Fly. r*** prosecutions are still ridiculously low. And victims of r*** are continuing not to report them because its impossible to prove.

So Jackson should have been sacrificed to the system, they should all have been found guilty of r-a-p-e because such conclusions encourage more r-a-p-e victims to come forward?  Dispense with law so that women can avail of the law?

Hysteria and paranoia.  All men potentially will r*** if they get an opportunity.  That's the blunt logic used by people who say they blanket 'believe' women because they are...women.

Salem witch trial era again.

How is Jackson being sacrificed? Jackson was his own worst enemy for his behaviour after the trial. I actually think if he did behaved like Olding did, he would still be playing rugby with Ulster and Ireland.

As a result of this case, there are reforms being made as to how these trials are to be conducted (including the victim of the r*** having a defence Counsel for the victim.

SHOULD he be sacrificed to the system to allow more women go forward with genuine r*** claims?  It was a question based on the presumptions of your earlier posts. Don't play ignorant.  A question.  You seem to claim that conclusions like the one at this trial discourage women from coming forward.  The inference yet again that it was a wrong legal conclusion... so the question was asked, should innocent men be convicted on the strength of a claim alone?  I know you'd say 'No.' But your arguments keep hinting at 'yes'

The aggressive questioning of the victim in that case suggests that there is a problem with the court system when it comes to dealing with r***. In a r*** case in Cork, a woman's underwear were displayed in the court to support the claim that she was 'up for it'. There is a problem with the system and that needs to be changed.

Was it unreasonable for the female senior counsel barrister to request the underwear to be held up as evidence given that the accused was found not guilty?

I dont think anyone is claiming knickers mean you consent to anything but in a trial you need to establish facts and intent when dealing with fine lines such as the often fairly grey area of consent more often than not being implied as opposed to being explicit. In this case a female barrister thought it appropriate and it turned out they were right. Where is the issue?

Most of the protests mid trial lead with the rather illogical slogan "victim blaming". Its a trial you are obliged to determine whether the accused is guilty or not and/or if the accuser is a really a victim of a crime or not.

[Sin é]

Btw, I fixed on the idea that 'the present system isn't working' and decided to go do a search for specific numbers of rapists in prison in Ireland. Sure enough, Google threw up just about every conceivable topic on non-reporting etc etc.  They even threw up something were one guy or woman was castigating the 'not all men' criers.  How nice, we should feel guilt now even when saying not all men are rapists.

Anyway, I did manage to eventually find some little piece on actual statistics.... the thing I was looking for in the first place without the propaganda speeches.

And Sin, you won't believe if but it's in the good old Irish Examiner.

Ireland in the study (2017) had more people in prison on life sentences than the European average.  The North I think was tops.
But more specifically on to sexual crimes:

Ireland were stated as having 6.7% of inmates as convicted rapists (the European average was 4.6%)
For other sexual offences Ireland were on 6% (the European average was 3.9%)

I looked at the overall prison population.  The latest figure seems to be 4,039 (April 2019).  Let's say that roughly 6.7% remains about the same for the r***ist population.
So very roughly, is that about 260 convicted rapists and roughly the same number of people convicted of other sexual offences?  That's off the top of my head so forgive the roughness. 
Obviously, people are going to court.  I would assume most of them are men.  I take it that women have taken cases against them, and testified against them, and evidence was heard, and juries came to the conclusion that the defendants committed the crime of r***.

But we don't hear about those kinds of conviction rates or of the women who successfully got justice according to their claims.  No, those numbers don't interest the social justice warriors.  The system doesn't work, women don't come forward, men get off.  That's the mantra that gets the blood up and gains followers.

Those convicted of r*** usually entail violence to the woman which leave physical injuries.
Here are some stats for you (2018):
https://www.drcc.ie/2009/04/new-comparative-research-of-11-european-countries-including-ireland-highlights-the-low-levels-of-r***-cases-proceeding-to-court/

[LondonTiger]

I have separated this from the original thread to enable anyone who wants to talk about on field matters at LI not see their point deluged by other things.


Please be very careful about things discussed to ensure we do not end up on the wrong side of the law.

[Sin é]

A footballer giving a course on sex ed sounds about as likely a match as a binman giving a course on makeup artistry.

Life after football!

Sadlier holds a BSc in Sports Science from the University of Surrey and a Higher Diploma and MA in Psychotherapy from Dublin Business School.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/health-family/so-if-you-go-out-and-both-get-drunk-you-can-t-have-sex-that-s-f-ked-up-1.3840294

[Sin é]

I respect your right to take whaever stance you wish Sin but believing anyone unconditionally is a terrible idea in any judicial system. Its also completely contrary to any goal of equality to believe one party over another by default on the basis of their gender.

Believing anyone unconditionally isn't what is proposed. Its not a gender issue. Plenty of men being raped by men.

[SecretFly]

6.7% is the stat, Sin. Above the European average at the time...as were the numbers for other sexual crimes - above the European average. Men are taken to court in this country and they are convicted - of r***.

[Sin é]

....and hadn't until the circus that Diageo and the feminists started spooked them...

Real mob rule society we live in right now.  "If you don't join the lynch mob, you might need a lynching yourself....we don't like no sympathisers of an innocent man who we still think ain't innocent coz it's his word against hers."

This will backfire on the sponsors if LI hold their nerve.  And even if they don't and find a way of legally (it'll be difficult) dumping Jackson.  That in itself will cast more public light on what has become a reprehensible witch-hunt dictatorship where political interest groups threaten and cajole until they get their pound of flesh.  Those interest groups want this man to be virtually unemployable - destitute and forgotten.

And dumb sheep who follow these movements with blindfolds in place and placards hoisted, don't even remotely realise or care that they are part of a new McCarthyism - intolerance, faux morality, denial of free speech, with us or against us, blacklisting.... oppression.  The works.

Get a grip.  This is mass induced controlled and orchestrated paranoia on hyperdrive - Orson Welles on radio telling the public that the Martians had landed.

Get a grip Fly. r*** prosecutions are still ridiculously low. And victims of r*** are continuing not to report them because its impossible to prove.

So Jackson should have been sacrificed to the system, they should all have been found guilty of r-a-p-e because such conclusions encourage more r-a-p-e victims to come forward?  Dispense with law so that women can avail of the law?

Hysteria and paranoia.  All men potentially will r*** if they get an opportunity.  That's the blunt logic used by people who say they blanket 'believe' women because they are...women.

Salem witch trial era again.

How is Jackson being sacrificed? Jackson was his own worst enemy for his behaviour after the trial. I actually think if he did behaved like Olding did, he would still be playing rugby with Ulster and Ireland.

As a result of this case, there are reforms being made as to how these trials are to be conducted (including the victim of the r*** having a defence Counsel for the victim.

SHOULD he be sacrificed to the system to allow more women go forward with genuine r*** claims?  It was a question based on the presumptions of your earlier posts. Don't play ignorant.  A question.  You seem to claim that conclusions like the one at this trial discourage women from coming forward.  The inference yet again that it was a wrong legal conclusion... so the question was asked, should innocent men be convicted on the strength of a claim alone?  I know you'd say 'No.' But your arguments keep hinting at 'yes'

The aggressive questioning of the victim in that case suggests that there is a problem with the court system when it comes to dealing with r***. In a r*** case in Cork, a woman's underwear were displayed in the court to support the claim that she was 'up for it'. There is a problem with the system and that needs to be changed.

Was it unreasonable for the female senior counsel barrister to request the underwear to be held up as evidence given that the accused was found not guilty?

I dont think anyone is claiming knickers mean you consent to anything but in a trial you need to establish facts and intent when dealing with fine lines such as the often fairly grey area of consent more often than not being implied as opposed to being explicit. In this case a female barrister thought it appropriate and it turned out they were right. Where is the issue?

Most of the protests mid trial lead with the rather illogical slogan "victim blaming". Its a trial you are obliged to determine whether the accused is guilty or not and/or if the accuser is a really a victim of a crime or not.

Seriously Guns, it is acceptable in the the courts that wearing a pair of sexy knickers suggests you wanted to have sex with isn't bonkers? It doesn't matter that the defence barrister was a woman (thats strategic as well having a female defence counsel) - the duty of the counsel is to their client.

[Sin é]

6.7% is the stat, Sin.  Above the European average at the time...as were the numbers for other sexual crimes - above the European average.  Men are taken to court in this country and they are convicted - of r***.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here Fly? Men who physically assault women in the process of raping them are taken to court and convicted of r***. And while Ireland maybe slightly higher than the rest of Europe, thats probably down to the Gardai who actually manage to collect evidence before its too late (by the woman showering etc.)

[Collapse2005]

I respect your right to take whaever stance you wish Sin but believing anyone unconditionally is a terrible idea in any judicial system. Its also completely contrary to any goal of equality to believe one party over another by default on the basis of their gender.

Believing anyone unconditionally isn't what is proposed. Its not a gender issue. Plenty of men being raped by men.

Not sure I agree given that quite a large number of protesters bearing "I Believe Her" banners appear to be in favour of believing women unconditionally. That seemed also to be the crux of what Sadlier is getting at in his piece too.

[Collapse2005]

Seriously Guns, it is acceptable in the the courts that wearing a pair of sexy knickers suggests you wanted to have sex with isn't bonkers? It doesn't matter that the defence barrister was a woman (thats strategic as well having a female defence counsel) - the duty of the counsel is to their client.

I dont think it is bonkers to look at someones behavior to try to understand their intent at all. That said I dont think clothing in itself proves anything just that its not unreasonable in combination with other evidence and facts to make a case.

The outrage expressed in this scenario is just one of many recent examples of how female advocacy groups arent interested in equal treatment but rather special treatment.

[SecretFly]

6.7% is the stat, Sin.  Above the European average at the time...as were the numbers for other sexual crimes - above the European average.  Men are taken to court in this country and they are convicted - of r***.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here Fly? Men who physically assault women in the process of raping them are taken to court and convicted of r***. And while Ireland maybe slightly higher than the rest of Europe, thats probably down to the Gardai who actually manage to collect evidence before its too late (by the woman showering etc.)

It's a stat.  Men go to court and are convicted.  Women go to court and testify against them.  

Prosecution will be aggressive, Defense will be aggressive.  The duty is not to make one person more comfortable than the other.  It is to provide evidence, ask tough questions and allow a jury to come to a decision on what is Truth.  

The alleged victim doesn't want to go to court and have their lives, their attitudes, their phone records, their sexual histories presented to the world.  They don't appreciate the tone of questioning.  They feel victimised all over again.  
But that same sense of being attacked and vilified, and the feeling of powerlessness and vulnerability in having their private lives torn into by aggressive lawyers, that's also the fate of the accused.  He doesn't feel any less fear, any less victimised just because he is a man and the accused.  He's innocent until a court finds him guilty.

[No 7&1/2]

I think most people would agree there are guilty men on the street for a whole range of crimes including sexual assaults. A verdict of guilty or not guilty or not even going to trial isnt going to convince everyone.

[Collapse2005]

I think most people would agree there are guilty men on the street for a whole range of crimes including sexual assaults. A verdict of guilty or not guilty or not even going to trial isnt going to convince everyone.

Interesting how you frame that. I would argue that there are guilty people on the street, guilty of all sorts. Just as its possible for there to be people to be guilty of r___ so it is also possible that there are people guilty of false accusations. Taking into account both sides of the coin is real equality. Not the ala carte made for women only version.

[SecretFly]

Yes, there are Guilty men on the street for a whole range of crimes.  The law of averages and reality suggests there are also many guilty women on the streets guilty of a whole range of crimes. That's just fact. Can't be avoided. There are no avenues in the real world that exclude women from the same frailties as men.

But being convinced of a person's guilt or innocence isn't a legally binding judgement in the society we choose to live in - whether the suspect is male or female.

Diageo is strongly intimating that Jackson isn't innocent. Now, if they'd argue that their decision is not based on the verdict of the court but instead based only on the languages in the texts, well there too, they are ascribing guilt to Jackson collectively for posts he didn't even type.  

No matter what people think of him, he has been found Not Guilty of the crime and neither did he write the texts that most upset observers.

[No 7&1/2]

Quite possible. As long as that can be agreed on you can understand that people don't put all their faith into the system thus some.of the resulting fallout. The fallout can quickly become toxic for sponsors etc hence they distance themselves or keep themselves well out of it.

[SecretFly]

I think most people would agree there are guilty men on the street for a whole range of crimes including sexual assaults. A verdict of guilty or not guilty or not even going to trial isnt going to convince everyone.

Interesting how you frame that. I would argue that there are guilty people on the street, guilty of all sorts. Just as its possible for there to be people to be guilty of r___ so it is also possible that there are people guilty of false accusations. Taking into account both sides of the coin is real equality. Not the ala carte made for women only version.

[Collapse2005]

Quite possible. As long as that can be agreed on you can understand that people don't put all their faith into the system thus some.of the resulting fallout. The fallout can quickly become toxic for sponsors etc hence they distance themselves or keep themselves well out of it.

I do agree but that doesnt really make it right. As much as its possible for sponsors to bow to pressure to pull out its also justifiable by the same logic for an opposing set of people to boycott the sponsor for their decision to withdraw.

In the same way I dislike politicians for being populist I also dislike companies like Diageo for doing the same. Its fairly easy to see through. To me populism is the biggest flaw of democracy.

[No 7&1/2]

I don't see it as a right and wrong issue. It's just weighing the odds. I'm sure that decision like that will have been discussed thoroughly. Of course they'll be talking about impact in Dale's financiallynetc. They'll also have considered it morally both in terms like you and fly have laid out and in the terms of how these guys acted and I'm.sure in an un minuted moment they focussed the result of the trial.

[Sin é]

6.7% is the stat, Sin.  Above the European average at the time...as were the numbers for other sexual crimes - above the European average.  Men are taken to court in this country and they are convicted - of r***.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here Fly? Men who physically assault women in the process of raping them are taken to court and convicted of r***. And while Ireland maybe slightly higher than the rest of Europe, thats probably down to the Gardai who actually manage to collect evidence before its too late (by the woman showering etc.)

It's a stat.  Men go to court and are convicted.  Women go to court and testify against them.  

Prosecution will be aggressive, Defense will be aggressive.  The duty is not to make one person more comfortable than the other.  It is to provide evidence, ask tough questions and allow a jury to come to a decision on what is Truth.  

The alleged victim doesn't want to go to court and have their lives, their attitudes, their phone records, their sexual histories presented to the world.  They don't appreciate the tone of questioning.  They feel victimised all over again.  
But that same sense of being attacked and vilified, and the feeling of powerlessness and vulnerability in having their private lives torn into by aggressive lawyers, that's also the fate of the accused.  He doesn't feel any less fear, any less victimised just because he is a man and the accused.  He's innocent until a court finds him guilty.

You can't ignore that most people who feel they were sexually assaulted (by attending a r*** crisis centre) do not prosecute because they know that its impossible to prove. That means that there maybe a lot of sexual predators walking around out there.

I've told you about a young woman I know who was raped (and still attending counselling 5 years later) and didn't prosecute because she knew she would be ripped apart and it would be impossible to prove r***. Her r***ist is still walking around.

I read a testimony of another woman who was also raped by a man and didn't prosecute. The circumstances was that she went to this man's apartment, had some consentual kissing and it progressed further than what she wanted to (she felt intimidated/overpowered by the strength of the man and decided to go along with it as long as he used a condom. Unknown to her, he took off the condom and had sex with her.

All she is guilty of is poor judgement (going to his apartment). What do you think he is guilty of? Do you think he is a safe person to have loose in society?

[Sin é]

6.7% is the stat, Sin.  Above the European average at the time...as were the numbers for other sexual crimes - above the European average.  Men are taken to court in this country and they are convicted - of r***.

I'm not sure what you are arguing here Fly? Men who physically assault women in the process of raping them are taken to court and convicted of r***. And while Ireland maybe slightly higher than the rest of Europe, thats probably down to the Gardai who actually manage to collect evidence before its too late (by the woman showering etc.)

It's a stat.  Men go to court and are convicted.  Women go to court and testify against them.  

Prosecution will be aggressive, Defense will be aggressive.  The duty is not to make one person more comfortable than the other.  It is to provide evidence, ask tough questions and allow a jury to come to a decision on what is Truth.  

The alleged victim doesn't want to go to court and have their lives, their attitudes, their phone records, their sexual histories presented to the world.  They don't appreciate the tone of questioning.  They feel victimised all over again.  
But that same sense of being attacked and vilified, and the feeling of powerlessness and vulnerability in having their private lives torn into by aggressive lawyers, that's also the fate of the accused.  He doesn't feel any less fear, any less victimised just because he is a man and the accused.  He's innocent until a court finds him guilty.

Under Irish law, the r***ist retains his/her privacy unless proven guilty (and at the descretion of the victim who might want to retain their privacy).

[Collapse2005]

He sounds like a scumbag

[SecretFly]

Sin.  You are using emotion.  I am TRYing to use the cold clinical truth around crime, the accusations of crime, the legal system and crime, the legal system and accusations of crime, and then any verdicts coming from that legal system.

You mention two cases of two women who you say have been raped.  You say they had been raped and yet you also say they didn't prosecute.  They have their reasons for not prosecuting.  

I can't have an opinion on them or their particular cases.  I don't know them and all I have is your descriptive pieces.  
But you directly, without any evidence presented in a legal context, without knowing the men or any possible defence they might have or present, have deemed them rapists.  That just cannot be the definition of r*** or the standards we seek to operate under.  Even me now saying here that your examples seem like genuine cases, even me going that far is I think wrong - even though it might paint me in a more caring light! 
I still feel compelled not to go there because verdicts can't be based on emotions but judgement of the evidence presented.

I have five sisters.  I have a lifetime amongst women.  The greatest influences in my life have been women...both family, through school, into adulthood. I have oodles of empathy.  Sometimes much too much.  I hate bad people and I'm very protective of vulnerable people.
But I'm also cursed by a mind that demands logical perspectives in situations like this.  It's essential.  We simply can't have kangaroo courts.  A serious crime like r*** must be proven with formal methods and based on evidence just like in other serious crime trials.  And the accused must have the right to defend himself or herself.

Women who have prosecuted, and who have seen their attackers convicted, should be encouraged to help other women through the process of finding that determination to make their complaints and use the courts.  That's where the groundwork needs to be done because such women exist.  They can make the steps appear easier or Even present as simply people who can fully understand the pain these women feel and perhaps mentor them to gain courage and strength to even now take a case.

[Sin é]

Fly, maybe you need to be a bit more emotive - it is an emotional crime. I think that maybe you are stuck a bit in the past where people were much more respectful of each other. Richard Sadlier's take on the situation now is that young people are getting their sex education from porn sites on their phones where sex has been completely objectified those involved, with no communications between the people having sex.

Quite a few people who have managed to prosecute their rapists do help out, but they have horrific stories. For instance one r*** victim won her case only because she could prove she was a gay woman and would never have agreed to sex with a man. And of course, The r*** Crisis Centre has been around for a long time now (except it was closed in Belfast because there was no funding to keep it going).

[SecretFly]

Nah...emotion leads to vigilantism.  And we on this island know only too well how those habits go when police and judiciary aren't trusted to do the job right.  
People got named, kneecapped, beaten with iron bars or simply killed and dumped.  Rough justice.  Guilty or innocent?  Who cared, don't ask questions....the boys must have had something on him.  He must have been involved in some kind of anti-social behavior.  Wouldn't have happened to him if he wasn't up to something.

Can't have mob rule and ordinary people just deciding who is guilty in their minds.

ANYWAY.... that's me finished with this topic until any new developments take it back into the limelight.  Like I said, I guess the next test will be Jackson running on to the field.

[Sin é]

So, Fly, your solution is that victims of sexual assault should just put up and shut up?

[clivemcl]

Sin, just cut to the chase.

You'd be hapy to see a small percentage of inncent people in jail as a small sacrifice for most guilty people getting punished.

You'd like to see people goingt o jail without being 100% sure of their guilt.

Either just admit this or quit arguing.

[No 7&1/2]

Are companies within their rights to choose who to sponsor?

[clivemcl]

Interesting question. For me, it’s along the lines of the question of cake companies deciding what they put on cakes.

There’s no legal basis for their reluctance, they simply disagree on the basis of ‘values’.

[No 7&1/2]

There'll already be clauses for separation within the contracts though or clauses for behaviour presumably. If they simply break a contract they're probably leaving the money behind and removing their name.

[maestegmafia]

In an era where we are aware of cases where people have been falsely convicted, lawyers lied, police covered up evidence, as well as the far more common place governments lying to us on a daily basis, it is very hard to have a firm conviction in our judicial or parliamentary system.

I am sure we can all agree that the majority of cases are fairly conspired and the correct result given, but there are enough reports of real cases as well as fictitious tv series and movies on the failures of the judicial system for us all to want to question the result of any trial.

This trial in particular and so well covered, is close to all of us as rugby fans. When so much has been said and denied and so much past history, not just of the people concerned raised and aired in public it is impossible not to be emotionally effected.

As a society we need to have faith in our judicial system, faith in our safety and belief in a modern egality that includes everyone from the famous and powerful to the weakest and most vulnerable in society.

With no exception to that, we also have to look at the reason “fake news” or, the “incorrect result found at a hearing”, can exist and I deeply believe most of that is not because of a completely failed system, but rather the publicity that the flaws in the system attract globally are told to us so regularly and by so many media outlets. Remember that media outlets exist to make money not to tell news. Films and TV series are there to make money not to reveal truths and dispel myths.

Unless new evidence comes forward the result of the trial stands, whether right or wrong Jackson and his mates are deemed innocent. There are many things we can learn from here, but I soundly advise that most we can learn from and improve is in our own moral conduct and the way we teach others.

[Collapse2005]

Its true that media outlets exist to make money however, some are definitely more honest than others and those are the ones I subscribe to albeit fact checking isn't a bad habit to get into regardless.

Yes it is also true that the judicial system is not perfect but in centuries of fine tuning its all we have and in the absence of something better its ok to have faith in it without necessarily being against reform and improvement.

I just don't think that unconditionally believing one gender over the other is the answer given that dishonesty isn't a uniquely male characteristic and real equality commands equal treatment and/or compromise.

[SecretFly]

Are companies within their rights to choose who to sponsor?

I said I wouldn't come back to this topic but this goaded me.  I will stick to my guns though and not discuss the specifics or theory around the r*** case.

But 7' you tell us.  Are companies within their rights to choose who to sponsor?  
Throwing the question back at you I know.  Not fair really.  But here's the thing, people seldom factor in the totality of the inference when dealing with a specific issue.

Have Diageo the right to make a commercial decision based on what they think is good for brand identity?  Some obviously think they have.  I've said they've made their decision.  None of my concern.  It's between them and LI.  Should it go to court?  Not my concern.  I don't care.  I wouldn't be on the streets protesting them and if I did drink Guinness (I don't) I wouldn't be bothering to boycott them.

But are they within their rights?  Some think so and that's enough.
Now I suppose adding to that, it would also be believed that companies would be within their rights to remove sponsorship from a team that hired Folau - the outspoken Christian - yes?  I think it's safe to assume posters in here would feel safe enough to say so.

So companies are allowed deny sponsorship to a club that employs a devout evangelical Christian.  And companies are allowed deny sponsorship to a club that employs a heterosexual, sexually promiscuous man cleared of the crime of r***.

Now carry this on.

Would a company be allowed deny sponsorship to a club that employs devout Muslims (who publically speak out on the principles of their faith)?
Would a company be allowed deny sponsorship to a club that employs black players?
Would a company be allowed deny sponsorship to a club that employs atheists, who might challenge Religious principles on social media?
Would a company be allowed deny sponsorship to a club that employs gay sexually promiscuous people?  

I think in some of those situations, we all know there would be such displays of protest, and hyper critical political comment, that said companies would be made well aware of serious consequences for their brand if they didn't relent.

So perhaps 'double standards' might be a discussion point as regards many aspects of this particular case.

[Collapse2005]

That wouldn't do that thought because it seems clear that companies by and large simply make populist decisions and if they did a majority seemingly wouldn't care.

[clivemcl]

In other words, these companies are not acting on ‘values’ they are only taking moves that will either get them media attention or protect them from financial boycott.

They will happily ignore poor ‘values’ as long as it isn’t impacting their profits. Case in point Craig Gilroy. And I’m sure many many more sports stars that have somehow escaped media pressure and social media campaigns despite having sloppy ‘values’.

[maestegmafia]

I just don't think that unconditionally believing one gender over the other is the answer given that dishonesty isn't a uniquely male characteristic and real equality commands equal treatment and/or compromise.

I agree.

Though educating boys and girls that going out having fun is all part of being young but both boys and girls can unwittingly put themselves in a comprised situation where they will face regret for the rest of their lives is an important lesson.

[maestegmafia]

In other words, these companies are not acting on ‘values’ they are only taking moves that will either get them media attention or protect them from financial boycott.

They will happily ignore poor ‘values’ as long as it isn’t impacting their profits. Case in point Craig Gilroy. And I’m sure many many more sports stars that have somehow escaped media pressure and social media campaigns despite having sloppy ‘values’.

Unfortunately corporate morales are a great deal shadier than public ones in most cases. We shouldn’t excuse them of that though.

[clivemcl]

I just don't think that unconditionally believing one gender over the other is the answer given that dishonesty isn't a uniquely male characteristic and real equality commands equal treatment and/or compromise.

I agree.

Though educating boys and girls that going out having fun is all part of being young but both boys and girls can unwittingly put themselves in a comprised situation where they will face regret for the rest of their lives.

It’s funny how the public opinion is to educate young people to avoid dangerous situations and yet it would be seen as unpopular and ridiculous to educate young people in just not getting drunk or being in the company of those who are drunk at a private party.

Classic modern society where being blocked is a valid excuse for minor misdemeanours including punch ups and being rude, but when it comes to more serious crime apparently we happily ignore the social norm of over indulging with alcohol and instead judge people as evil or immoral etc.

Being drunk is either perfectly understandable or very not wise. Come on 2019 society. Make your mind up.

[maestegmafia]

I just don't think that unconditionally believing one gender over the other is the answer given that dishonesty isn't a uniquely male characteristic and real equality commands equal treatment and/or compromise.

I agree.

Though educating boys and girls that going out having fun is all part of being young but both boys and girls can unwittingly put themselves in a comprised situation where they will face regret for the rest of their lives.

It’s funny how the public opinion is to educate young people to avoid dangerous situations and yet it would be seen as unpopular and ridiculous to educate young people in just not getting drunk or being in the company of those who are drunk at a private party.

Classic modern society we’re being blocked is a valid excuse for minor misdemeanours including punch ups and being rude, but when it comes to more serious crime apparently we happily ignore the social norm of over indulging with alcohol and instead judge people as evil or immoral etc.

Being drunk is either perfectly understandable or very not wise. Come on 2019 society. Make your mind up.

I agree.

It’s funny as you get older you see mainstays from the past reformed as a modern solution to a problem.

The milk float analogy is one I like, “could you imagine a system where locally sourced milk was delivered to your door as you need it, in 100% recyclable containers, on a fully rechargeable electric no emissions vehicle?”

A system we took for granted 30 years ago superseded by commercial exploitation of the local dairy industry by conglomerate international supermarkets.

Maybe there was a good reason that drunken behaviour by young men and women was so strongly deplored in our culture fifty years ago by the larger majority of society where as today it is glamourised by TV Shows, films and commercialised by the alcohol and music industries.

When society doesn’t respect our collective values we have to look first at ourselves and what we can do to make a difference.

[SecretFly]

In other words, these companies are not acting on ‘values’ they are only taking moves that will either get them media attention or protect them from financial boycott.

They will happily ignore poor ‘values’ as long as it isn’t impacting their profits. Case in point Craig Gilroy. And I’m sure many many more sports stars that have somehow escaped media pressure and social media campaigns despite having sloppy ‘values’.

Unfortunately corporate morales are a great deal shadier than public ones in most cases. We shouldn’t excuse them of that though.

I think public morals are in many cases LED/manipulated/formulated by corporates....be they Product sellers, TV companies, Movie Producers, Gaming companies, News Organisations, social media providers/facilitators.

I don't necessarily think that public opinion modulates their behaviour but more dangerously, they play the game on us.  They attempt to mould public opinion to their agendas.  Dangerous stuff. Orwellian.  
And I don't think enough decent people throughout the world are aware of the manipulative, coercive power this combined collective of society 'designers' wield.  
The trick is to make us think the desire to warp society, behaviour, customs, traditions and even the very meaning of words - comes from our own desires.  Makes us feel we're in the driving seat.  In my opinion, we very much ain't!

[Sin é]

Sin, just cut to the chase.

You'd be hapy to see a small percentage of inncent people in jail as a small sacrifice for most guilty people getting punished.

You'd like to see people goingt o jail without being 100% sure of their guilt.

Either just admit this or quit arguing.

I don't believe that and no way have I ever said that it is worth sacrificing innocent people. My point is that the victims should be taken care of as well. There is very little evidence of false reporting (and if they are they are usually either withdrawn by the alleged victim or the police won't prosecute because of lack of evidence). Barristers can do or say anything to introduce a doubt into the minds of a jurist (such as producing underwear that is deemed sexy - inferring that they must have been asking for it) and that is all they have to do to get off.

Its a really difficult situation and by putting your heads in the sand and making a joke about signing consent forms etc., how about educating people about consent?

[SecretFly]

Its a really difficult situation and by putting your heads in the sand and making a joke about signing consent forms etc., how about educating people about consent?

R-a-p-i-s-t-s will still lie!

Consent therefore can not be proven UNLESS such consent is a formalised pre-sex declaration that can be stored either electronically or on paper.  It is not a joke.  It's the reality of trying to Prove Consent... which cannot be done satisfactorially by just Educating people.  You just don't get it, Sin.
You can have Sadlier go to as many groupings as you want to educate on consent. A r***ist will still act without consent.  r*** will still happen.  Basterdes are still Basterdes.  Liars will still be liars - male Or female. It still needs a court to prove whether or not consent was given.

[Collapse2005]

Sadlier comes across as a bit of an airhead to me and I suspect he simply says what he thinks people want to hear without really making an effort to understand the ins and outs of what he is shoiting on about.

[Sin é]

Its a really difficult situation and by putting your heads in the sand and making a joke about signing consent forms etc., how about educating people about consent?

R-a-p-i-s-t-s will still lie!

Consent therefore can not be proven UNLESS such consent is a formalised pre-sex declaration that can be stored either electronically or on paper.  It is not a joke.  It's the reality of trying to Prove Consent... which cannot be done satisfactorially by just Educating people.  You just don't get it, Sin.
You can have Sadlier go to as many groupings as you want to educate on consent. A r***ist will still act without consent.  r*** will still happen.  Basterdes are still Basterdes.  Liars will still be liars - male Or female.  It still needs a court to prove whether or not consent was given.

Believe it or not Fly, The School of Science in UCD are attempting to develop such an App. which is a non-runner for all such of reasons.

All the colleges (student Unions) are running mandatory course now on sexual health/behavour/consent. Hopefully it will reduce the incidences of accidental r*** (where someone thought someone was up for it)!. The Dept. of Justice are running an ad campaign at the moment on sexual harassment/violence.

Now, if someone rapes someone, they should be charged and found guilty and not get off on suggestions of consent by someone because they are wearing sexy underwear.

[Sin é]

Sadlier comes across as a bit of an airhead to me and I suspect he simply says what he thinks people want to hear.

Yea, an airhead would manage to qualify as a psychotherapist!

[Collapse2005]

Sadlier comes across as a bit of an airhead to me and I suspect he simply says what he thinks people want to hear.

Yea, an airhead would manage to qualify as a psychotherapist!

DBS is not difficult to get into and psychotherapy is a fairly unregulated discipline in Ireland. For most of DBS' degree courses you just need to leaving cert honours and 4 pass level grades. Not exactly genius level stuff.

[Sin é]

I just don't think that unconditionally believing one gender over the other is the answer given that dishonesty isn't a uniquely male characteristic and real equality commands equal treatment and/or compromise.

I agree.

Though educating boys and girls that going out having fun is all part of being young but both boys and girls can unwittingly put themselves in a comprised situation where they will face regret for the rest of their lives.

It’s funny how the public opinion is to educate young people to avoid dangerous situations and yet it would be seen as unpopular and ridiculous to educate young people in just not getting drunk or being in the company of those who are drunk at a private party.

Classic modern society where being blocked is a valid excuse for minor misdemeanours including punch ups and being rude, but when it comes to more serious crime apparently we happily ignore the social norm of over indulging with alcohol and instead judge people as evil or immoral etc.

Being drunk is either perfectly understandable or very not wise. Come on 2019 society. Make your mind up.

There are plenty of alcohol awareness programmes being funded by Government and the drinks companies. The reason the drinks companies sponsor them is that they know they will be banned from promoting their products if they don't. The IRFU and sporting organisations need their sponsorship. By the way, the GAA will not accept alcohol sponsorship (and Guinness used to do a lot with them) and in France, there are very tight controls on alcohol company marketing.

[Sin é]

Sadlier comes across as a bit of an airhead to me and I suspect he simply says what he thinks people want to hear.

Yea, an airhead would manage to qualify as a psychotherapist!

DBS is not difficult to get into and psychotherapy is a fairly unregulated discipline in Ireland. For most of DBS' degree courses you just need to leaving cert honours and 4 pass level grades. Not exactly genius level stuff.

Think he has a degree in Sports Science as well and its a Masters in Psychotherapy.
Maybe listen to him talking about it on Seconds Captain and then come back with your airhead claim.
https://www.secondcaptains.com/2018/03/29/episode-1124-the-belfast-r***-trial-sexual-consent-and-a-toxic-dressingroom-culture/

[Collapse2005]

Sadlier comes across as a bit of an airhead to me and I suspect he simply says what he thinks people want to hear.

Yea, an airhead would manage to qualify as a psychotherapist!

DBS is not difficult to get into and psychotherapy is a fairly unregulated discipline in Ireland. For most of DBS' degree courses you just need to leaving cert honours and 4 pass level grades. Not exactly genius level stuff.

Think he has a degree in Sports Science as well and its a Masters in Psychotherapy.
Maybe listen to him talking about it on Seconds Captain and then come back with your airhead claim.
https://www.secondcaptains.com/2018/03/29/episode-1124-the-belfast-r***-trial-sexual-consent-and-a-toxic-dressingroom-culture/

The entry requirements for a masters in psychology in DBS is a 2.2 in your undergrad degree. Anyone basically could get in.

Sadlier is tough to listen to. Couldn't be arsed listening to that now. Maybe later.

[Collapse2005]

I just don't think that unconditionally believing one gender over the other is the answer given that dishonesty isn't a uniquely male characteristic and real equality commands equal treatment and/or compromise.

I agree.

Though educating boys and girls that going out having fun is all part of being young but both boys and girls can unwittingly put themselves in a comprised situation where they will face regret for the rest of their lives.

It’s funny how the public opinion is to educate young people to avoid dangerous situations and yet it would be seen as unpopular and ridiculous to educate young people in just not getting drunk or being in the company of those who are drunk at a private party.

Classic modern society where being blocked is a valid excuse for minor misdemeanours including punch ups and being rude, but when it comes to more serious crime apparently we happily ignore the social norm of over indulging with alcohol and instead judge people as evil or immoral etc.

Being drunk is either perfectly understandable or very not wise. Come on 2019 society. Make your mind up.

There are plenty of alcohol awareness programmes being funded by Government and the drinks companies. The reason the drinks companies sponsor them is that they know they will be banned from promoting their products if they don't. The IRFU and sporting organisations need their sponsorship. By the way, the GAA will not accept alcohol sponsorship (and Guinness used to do a lot with them) and in France, there are very tight controls on alcohol company marketing.

Companies like Diageo are only delighted to head up awareness campaigns as they retain control of the message being imparted. Its a complete conflict of interest which prevents such industries dying a natural death.

[maestegmafia]

In other words, these companies are not acting on ‘values’ they are only taking moves that will either get them media attention or protect them from financial boycott.

They will happily ignore poor ‘values’ as long as it isn’t impacting their profits. Case in point Craig Gilroy. And I’m sure many many more sports stars that have somehow escaped media pressure and social media campaigns despite having sloppy ‘values’.

Unfortunately corporate morales are a great deal shadier than public ones in most cases. We shouldn’t excuse them of that though.

I think public morals are in many cases LED/manipulated/formulated by corporates....be they Product sellers, TV companies, Movie Producers, Gaming companies, News Organisations, social media providers/facilitators.

I don't necessarily think that public opinion modulates their behaviour but more dangerously, they play the game on us.  They attempt to mould public opinion to their agendas.  Dangerous stuff. Orwellian.  
And I don't think enough decent people throughout the world are aware of the manipulative, coercive power this combined collective of society 'designers' wield.  
The trick is to make us think the desire to warp society, behaviour, customs, traditions and even the very meaning of words - comes from our own desires.  Makes us feel we're in the driving seat.  In my opinion, we very much ain't!

Absolutely, over the years I have clearly seen the way marketing has changed from instilling confidence through quality and locality to a concept of aspiration inspired by I’m not sure who...!

Socio-political change hasn’t helped in the uk we have certainly seen the majority of young people hit very hard by politically determined economic decisions that leave them disaffected and wanting to live a life with more extremes, thus making extreme partying become the norm rather than a minority in society.

In the fifties in London you could party all night in soho, but only a few thousand people did, outside of the very centre of the capitol a few other major cities had areas open all night for people to party, and only at weekends.

Now it is taken for granted that every town, city and suburb needs to have late night partying because now millions of young people want to be out and more than just at the weekends.

Culture has changed, people struggle to socialise, hence the rise of tinder, Facebook, online dating etc....! Peoples expectations of what they should do when they socialise have changed dramatically. Our attitude to companies and corporations have changed as the commercial world has changed, marketing and advertising changed, tv shows and movies changed.

Every now and then an incident centres our acceptance of a collective moral compass. This whole case raises so many different questions, I don’t think the case was handled well by the media, an absolute lack of sensitivity to any side and because of the obvious negativity that associates to Jackson it is easy to understand that a brand would not want to be associated with him, likewise that brand could have chosen to spin this scenario another way...

[Sponsored content]