Belfast Rugby Players Rape Trial

[unchanged_lineup]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

 

[Bobski]

I am not comfortable with the lynch mob aspects of this and the retrial through social media phenomena. It was inevitable though, the whats-app messages are a bad look for the sport, especially in the post Weinstein/#MeToo/Rape culture discussion environment. Keeping the sponsors onside is imperative, I don't believe a moral stand is being taken here as much as protecting the financial interests of the institutions. No winners in this case, there will probably be more cases to come from Jackson and Olding trying to recover costs.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

What a fecking joke.

Totally disagree. They absolutely haven't lived up to the expected standard. I don't care if there might be other players somewhere who might be doing the same - it's up to them to behave better too, not to excuse abhorrent behaviour because others also possibly do it.

Also, Jackson's own statement disagrees with you.

 

[lsd]

How can anyone call this a joke? They haven't been sacked for rape. They have been sacked for their behaviour which wasn't in doubt and which even they have aknowledged .

 

[sullydnl]

Sexual activity both players engaged and took pride in ended with the girl in question leaving them bleeding and in hysterics. Both of them acknowledge that the girl's distress as a result of this sexual activity was genuine. Both of them also acknowledge that their behaviour in this incident was unacceptable. Messages relating to the incident that were made public show the players displaying attitudes towards women that are incompatible with Ulster Rugby's proclaimed values. As a result of the players' actions Ulster Rugby was now facing significant and damaging backlash from both fans and sponsors.

In that scenario I don't see how anyone can have any complaints about the decision to let them go. Even without looking beyond the not guilty verdict their behaviour justified this decision.

 

[Paxi]

Is that thier playing careers over then?

 

[Bobski]

Is that thier playing careers over then?

No, they will probably get a chance in England or France, but in terms of playing for Ireland or one of the provinces again I would say yes.

 

[Paxi]

No, they will probably get a chance in England or France, but in terms of playing for Ireland or one of the provinces again I would say yes.

Oh okay. Cheers.

 

[edgar allan]

Totally disagree. They absolutely haven't lived up to the expected standard. I don't care if there might be other players somewhere who might be doing the same - it's up to them to behave better too, not to excuse abhorrent behaviour because others also possibly do it.

Also, Jackson's own statement disagrees with you.

So where do the moral police set the boundaries now?

Would you agree that sleeping with your brothers wife should be a sackable offence?

 

[unchanged_lineup]

So where do the moral police set the boundaries now?

Would you agree that sleeping with your brothers wife should be a sackable offence?

I'm not going to even engage. I'll refer you back Jackson's own statement for your answer.

 

[711]

So where do the moral police set the boundaries now?

Would you agree that sleeping with your brothers wife should be a sackable offence?

There aren't actually any moral police, the board of the club were free to make a decision as they saw fit.

Seeing as this is a United board you might have chose 'Should Tommy Doc have been sacked?' as well. The answer would have been the same though, it was up to the board, not you or I.

 

[edgar allan]

There aren't actually any moral police, the board of the club were free to make a decision as they saw fit.

Seeing as this is a United board you might have chose 'Should Tommy Doc have been sacked?' as well. The answer would have been the same though, it was up to the board, not you or I.

Yes and the moral outrage whipped up by people unhappy with the verdict was the major influence on the boards decision was it not?

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Yes and the moral outrage whipped up by people unhappy with the verdict was the major influence on the boards decision was it not?

Ask Kingspan and Bank Of Ireland if you want the answer to that.

 

[edgar allan]

I'm not going to even engage. I'll refer you back Jackson's own statement for your answer.

And what do you think explains the different tone in his latest statement compared to the one directly after the trial?

 

[edgar allan]

Ask Kingspan and Bank Of Ireland if you want the answer to that.

I could also ask them if grass is green but simiarily I already know the answer.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

I could also ask them if grass is green but simiarily I already know the answer.

Then why are you asking us if you have the answer from them?

 

[unchanged_lineup]

And what do you think explains the different tone in his latest statement compared to the one directly after the trial?

Stop will you. He threatened to sue everyone and now isn't.

 

[edgar allan]

Then why are you asking us if you have the answer from them?

I am not asking you anything, just disagreeing with your view on the decision.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

I am not asking you anything, just disagreeing with your view on the decision.

No, you're claiming you know why they were sacked. Are you on the board? Are you with Kingspan or BOI? If not, you're just speculating the same as anyone.

 

[edgar allan]

Stop will you. He threatened to sue everyone and now isn't.

Yes PR advice on how to try and minimise the damage.
Didn't work obviously....the moral mob were too powerful.

 

[edgar allan]

No, you're claiming you know why they were sacked. Are you on the board? Are you with Kingspan or BOI? If not, you're just speculating the same as anyone.

Didn't stop many speculating on a court case they knew little about.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Didn't stop many speculating on a court case they knew little about.

Why do you think they knew little about it? Is it because you know little about it?

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Yes PR advice on how to try and minimise the damage.
Didn't work obviously....the moral mob were too powerful.

Minimise the damage of what?

The answer to that is the all the answer you need for your questions.

 

[Jippy]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Bit of a non sequitur in the last sentence in the third paragraph. At least he accepts that his before was odious, unlike Young's self-pitying guff.

 

[edgar allan]

Why do you think they knew little about it? Is it because you know little about it?

The court room must have had 10s of thousands in it every day given the number of experts giving an opinion.

Obviously their opinion was more accurate than the 11 jurors that heard the case.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

The court room must have had 10s of thousands in it every day given the number of experts giving an opinion.

Obviously their opinion was more accurate than the 11 jurors that heard the case.

So I can take it then that you're not fully informed about it and projecting onto others.

 

[Jippy]

Yes PR advice on how to try and minimise the damage.
Didn't work obviously....the moral mob were too powerful.

So anyone finding their behaviour horrendous is part of the 'moral mob'?

 

[edgar allan]

So I can take it then that you're not fully informed about it and projecting onto others.

Absolutely, which is why I will not attribute guilt or condemn on the basis of press reports.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Absolutely, which is why I will not attribute guilt or condemn on the basis of press reports.

Good for you. It was heavily covered in print, radio and TV and we now even have reportage of proceedings when the jury was absent that was previously excluded from coverage. In addition, the entire case was basically live tweeted by a number of journalists.

At this stage, you're basically on your own when even Jackson himself has accepted that his sacking is justified.

 

[Paxi]

Would them 2 recieve the rest of their wages or were they in breach of contract?

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Would them 2 recieve the rest of their wages or were they in breach of contract?

A slightly suspicious account on Twitter was tweeting on every single press tweet about it that "they have been paid off according to BBC"

 

[Paxi]

A slightly suspicious account on Twitter was tweeting on every single press tweet about it that "they have been paid off according to BBC"

Right. Cheers.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Right. Cheers.

There's nothing I can see on BBC to that effect though

 

[Paxi]

There's nothing I can see on BBC to that effect though

Hmm.. They must have paid them off. You'd think if they didn't, Ulster would be getting sued since they haven't did anything wrong in the eyes of the law.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

Hmm.. They must have paid them off. You'd think if they didn't, Ulster would be getting sued since they haven't did anything wrong in the eyes of the law.

That's not the question with these contracts though, they've been sacked for breaching code of conduct.

 

[edgar allan]

Good for you. It was heavily covered in print, radio and TV and we now even have reportage of proceedings when the jury was absent that was previously excluded from coverage. In addition, the entire case was basically live tweeted by a number of journalists.

At this stage, you're basically on your own when even Jackson himself has accepted that his sacking is justified.

Well thankfully for all of us the court system generally listens to the evidence rather than going with the social media consensus.
He was going to be sacked so his choices of statement were pretty limited.

Maybe you agree with Craig Gilroy being sacked also, even though he wasn't even in the house or knew what had happened since he also used some bad words in a whatsapp message?

 

[Paxi]

That's not the question with these contracts though, they've been sacked for breaching code of conduct.

So why pay them? Contract breach doesn't constitute a pay off, does it? Granted I'm not clued in to how these things work. I stand to be corrected on this one.

 

[Member 55725]

I believe that everyone who has said vulgar things to their mates in private conversations should be fired from their jobs.

 

[unchanged_lineup]

So why pay them? Contract breach doesn't constitute a pay off, does it? Granted I'm not clued in to how these things work. I stand to be corrected on this one.

I don't think they have been. I said a slightly suspicious Twitter account says they were.