Ulster 2017 - 2018

[rooster]

Can anyone tell me what reporting restrictions are in place? The only one I remember reading about was that the complainant couldn't be named, and I certainly wouldn't want that to change, but I'm guessing there's a lot more.

Apparently there's several motions to have evidence dismissed or the trial dismissed which were embargoed during the trial. At least one of them is I think still on going. There's some suggeztion that the judge saw the trial thru because it had gone on so long and was so high profile.

Yes remember that away back there was originally a charge of vaginal rape against Olding which was dropped before the trial started.
There also is a case that started when Jackson and Olding took legal action against BBC and a couple of journalists for naming them before they were even charged with any offence.
There could be prejudicial stuff related to that involved.
Probably financial matters arising as Olding was granted legal aid during the trial as he was basically financially ruined by the cost.
All sorts of stuff like this is normally released to press and most goes straight to delete or shred but the reaction during and after this makes for a few more dirt digging articles.

[darkside lighteside]

What the IRFU have to deal with are 2 players who have been found not guilty of a crime but have found themselves to be on the opposite side of what society now finds acceptable. Do the IRFU risk in this golden era, getting on the wrong side of society and new social norms that are very emotive and passionate, do they risk being seen to tolerate, condone or even support such people. That's the question, its not ahh sure the lads have been found not guilty, its grand, lets get them back playing.

How much do you risk for 2 players? In the cold light of a purely business decision not much. When that business decision aligns with how society see's itself, where it wants to get to, the answer is even more clear.

I’m not sure I agree – what the IRFU has to deal with is 2 employees with contracts of employment, and they have to deal with them in accordance with the IRFU’s HR and disciplinary procedures, ensuring that all relevant employment law and regulations are adhered to, and with regard to precedent set in previous dealings with employees.

Respectfully the IRFU has no business taking on itself to interpret what “society’s” view of anything is, and it certainly has no business attempting to bring that into play into its dealings with its employees - that way is a fast-track to an employment tribunal.

[paddyor]

YEah the fact Olding had to apply for legal aid in February didn't come out until the end.

Jackson is apparently taking a case against a PSNI officer too.

[darkside lighteside]

Yeah I was actually just wondering if there's genuinely a story to tell or if they just want to sell papers/get clicks. From what CiaranIRL said I was assuming it was the former.

I honestly don't know, but there are have certainly been some rumours doing the rounds - at least one of which I thought was pretty eye-opening..

[rooster]

YEah the fact Olding had to apply for legal aid in February didn't come out until the end.

Jackson is apparently taking a case against a PSNI officer too.

Well someone had to tell the press.
The other bit I wonder about is who the journalists are they are looking into and is it the same ones who are trying to dig up a bit of dirt to try and cancel things out or just have an all out muck slinging session.

[rooster]

Yeah I was actually just wondering if there's genuinely a story to tell or if they just want to sell papers/get clicks. From what CiaranIRL said I was assuming it was the former.

I honestly don't know, but there are have certainly been some rumours doing the rounds - at least one of which I thought was pretty eye-opening..

Is that not eye opening as to why was case run at all ?

[LeRouxIsPHat]

I'm aware of most of the stuff that had been mentioned and they've made me remember that we got a lot more info down here so a lot of what could potentially be reported next week would actually be for the benefit of those up north. I'm sure that most of the stories are known already but I'd imagine the press would like to publish it regardless.

[Lar]

Is it not more likely that if the Union/Ulster Rugby want to consider disciplinary action they have no grounds to do so based on criminal activity as the former accused players have both been acquitted. Therefore they have to look at what was not in dispute, namely the whatsapp messages and the possibility that these may bring Irish/Ulster Rugby into disrepute. However if they are reviewing the messages of the former accused they cannot avoid CG's messages as otherwise they are reviewing some players' messages and not others. That would be hard to justify. Hence CG gets dragged into the review.

They're going to find it almost impossible to punish the players for the whatsapp messages anyway. They were private messages sent to a private, closed group. They only were exposed due to the trial process during which the defendants were acquitted. They or the general public would not normally have sight of theses messages.

Agree save that the messages are now in the public domain. How they got there is irrelevant save unless it was through unlawful disclosure. The disclosure was a lawful reporting of a criminal trial in this instance. I think the messages are probably fair game and the very fact CG is suspended pending the review on what seems is solely his whatsapp message to the group suggests the rugby authorities agree that the messages are at least worth investigating.

[rooster]

I'm aware of most of the stuff that had been mentioned and they've made me remember that we got a lot more info down here so a lot of what could potentially be reported next week would actually be for the benefit of those up north. I'm sure that most of the stories are known already but I'd imagine the press would like to publish it regardless.

No what they are after is additional to all that.

[paddyor]

YEah the fact Olding had to apply for legal aid in February didn't come out until the end.

Jackson is apparently taking a case against a PSNI officer too.

Well someone had to tell the press.
The other bit I wonder about is who the journalists are they are looking into and is it the same ones who are trying to dig up a bit of dirt to try and cancel things out or just have an all out muck slinging session.

IIRC some freelance journo working for the BBC reported they being investigated before they were tried.

[Oldschool]

I think people are missing a very major point here, the 4 defendants were found not guilty. That does not mean that society has found their behaviours and attitudes acceptable. In fact I think society finds these lads repugnant in the highest order. There have been comments on here that in times past this and that was said, but it wasn't written down so it didn't come back to haunt us, well maybe, but that again misses the point. Society has moved on, it always does. What was said in the past is not at issue, what's at issue is that society no longer has a tolerance for this stuff. There is a world wide movement based on society being vocal about no accepting this stuff and being vocal about it not being acceptable, in fact being silent and letting it pass is not an acceptable course of action and men in particular are being called out to be part of the solution not the problem.

If you agree or not, makes no difference. The majority / the prevailing attitude of society have made the decision. There are many examples of this, the best probably being marriage equality in Ireland. We went from it being unthinkable to being unthinkable not to have it in a blink of an eye. This is another inflection point, and it no different. Its not about sport and Ulster Rugby's need and we'd like to have some player for the world cup.

What the IRFU have to deal with are 2 players who have been found not guilty of a crime but have found themselves to be on the opposite side of what society now finds acceptable. Do the IRFU risk in this golden era, getting on the wrong side of society and new social norms that are very emotive and passionate, do they risk being seen to tolerate, condone or even support such people. That's the question, its not ahh sure the lads have been found not guilty, its grand, lets get them back playing.

How much do you risk for 2 players? In the cold light of a purely business decision not much. When that business decision aligns with how society see's itself, where it wants to get to, the answer is even more clear.

That's all well and good for "Society".
The problem tho is that the IRFU/Ulster are stuck with the legal fallout.
ie contractual obligations to the players that society can't just wave a magic wand and make disappear.
So given all the constraints what do you suggest the IRFU and players do (it must be workable for them) to resolve the issue.
Workable includes things like livelihood, employer references etc maybe even (maybe no doubt) a demand to be restored to their previous job.

[olaf the fat]

I think people are missing a very major point here, the 4 defendants were found not guilty. That does not mean that society has found their behaviours and attitudes acceptable. In fact I think society finds these lads repugnant in the highest order. There have been comments on here that in times past this and that was said, but it wasn't written down so it didn't come back to haunt us, well maybe, but that again misses the point. Society has moved on, it always does. What was said in the past is not at issue, what's at issue is that society no longer has a tolerance for this stuff. There is a world wide movement based on society being vocal about no accepting this stuff and being vocal about it not being acceptable, in fact being silent and letting it pass is not an acceptable course of action and men in particular are being called out to be part of the solution not the problem.

If you agree or not, makes no difference. The majority / the prevailing attitude of society have made the decision. There are many examples of this, the best probably being marriage equality in Ireland. We went from it being unthinkable to being unthinkable not to have it in a blink of an eye. This is another inflection point, and it no different. Its not about sport and Ulster Rugby's need and we'd like to have some player for the world cup.

What the IRFU have to deal with are 2 players who have been found not guilty of a crime but have found themselves to be on the opposite side of what society now finds acceptable. Do the IRFU risk in this golden era, getting on the wrong side of society and new social norms that are very emotive and passionate, do they risk being seen to tolerate, condone or even support such people. That's the question, its not ahh sure the lads have been found not guilty, its grand, lets get them back playing.

How much do you risk for 2 players? In the cold light of a purely business decision not much. When that business decision aligns with how society see's itself, where it wants to get to, the answer is even more clear.

I do have sympathy for the IRFU/UB on how they have to deal with this whole mess.

Sponsors will have the make their call on brand association. They will take account of the fact that PJ and SO are not guilty of any crime but also how society perceives their actions and attitudes. Remember regardless of how they were viewed before they are now the most famous Ulster Rugby players.

I know some Ulster Fans are being defensive of their players, but they should look at the damage caused to Ulster Rugby directly by the lads stupidity, actions and attitudes, how many sponsors will be lining up for their brand to be pictured with PJ/SO? Forget the PSNI, PPS, media, criminal cases etc. - Jacome and Juicers when they needed a "dont f%~k up" whats app group.

[CiaranIrl]

Yeah I was actually just wondering if there's genuinely a story to tell or if they just want to sell papers/get clicks. From what CiaranIRL said I was assuming it was the former.

Some of the things that can't be reported could apparently paint the picture a bit differently, but they were embargoed because it might be possible to infer the identity of the accuser from it.

[the spoofer]

I think people are missing a very major point here, the 4 defendants were found not guilty. That does not mean that society has found their behaviours and attitudes acceptable. In fact I think society finds these lads repugnant in the highest order. There have been comments on here that in times past this and that was said, but it wasn't written down so it didn't come back to haunt us, well maybe, but that again misses the point. Society has moved on, it always does. What was said in the past is not at issue, what's at issue is that society no longer has a tolerance for this stuff. There is a world wide movement based on society being vocal about no accepting this stuff and being vocal about it not being acceptable, in fact being silent and letting it pass is not an acceptable course of action and men in particular are being called out to be part of the solution not the problem.

If you agree or not, makes no difference. The majority / the prevailing attitude of society have made the decision. There are many examples of this, the best probably being marriage equality in Ireland. We went from it being unthinkable to being unthinkable not to have it in a blink of an eye. This is another inflection point, and it no different. Its not about sport and Ulster Rugby's need and we'd like to have some player for the world cup.

What the IRFU have to deal with are 2 players who have been found not guilty of a crime but have found themselves to be on the opposite side of what society now finds acceptable. Do the IRFU risk in this golden era, getting on the wrong side of society and new social norms that are very emotive and passionate, do they risk being seen to tolerate, condone or even support such people. That's the question, its not ahh sure the lads have been found not guilty, its grand, lets get them back playing.

How much do you risk for 2 players? In the cold light of a purely business decision not much. When that business decision aligns with how society see's itself, where it wants to get to, the answer is even more clear.

I do have sympathy for the IRFU/UB on how they have to deal with this whole mess.

Sponsors will have the make their call on brand association. They will take account of the fact that PJ and SO are not guilty of any crime but also how society perceives their actions and attitudes. Remember regardless of how they were viewed before they are now the most famous Ulster Rugby players.

I know some Ulster Fans are being defensive of their players, but they should look at the damage caused to Ulster Rugby directly by the lads stupidity, actions and attitudes, how many sponsors will be lining up for their brand to be pictured with PJ/SO? Forget the PSNI, PPS, media, criminal cases etc. - Jacome and Juicers when they needed a "dont f%~k up" whats app group.

The lads should be told to lace up their boots again. They were found not guilty, it is my opinion that the case shouldn't have made it to court as the evidence reported meant that there was no chance they would be convicted. The back story to this will be interesting when it eventually comes out.

The lads Whatsapp messages were extremely distasteful but if everyone lost their careers because of what they discussed in private whether that be social media or the pub then a lot of us would be unemployed.

[olaf the fat]

The facts are that they are not guilty, and therefor should be free to go about there career and private life. Problems do start when you look at how sponsor friendly they are and that this is kind of important to their particular jobs.

How much of the fall out the IRFU and Ulster branch will have to shoulder because of it is the debate, how is this going to hurt Ulster and Irish Rugby?

You have to remember that it is also a fact the the players have got themselves to blame for allowing themselves get wrapped up in a situation like this in the first place. They would have to be stupid to think that drunken group sex involving drunken people who they were unfamiliar with and followed by social media boasting was not a potentially bad idea. Is it OK to be that stupid?

[the spoofer]

The facts are that they are not guilty, and therefor should be free to go about there career and private life. Problems do start when you look at how sponsor friendly they are and that this is kind of important to their particular jobs.

How much of the fall out the IRFU and Ulster branch will have to shoulder because of it is the debate, how is this going to hurt Ulster and Irish Rugby?

You have to remember that it is also a fact the the players have got themselves to blame for allowing themselves get wrapped up in a situation like this in the first place. They would have to be stupid to think that drunken group sex involving drunken people who they were unfamiliar with and followed by social media boasting was not a potentially bad idea. Is it OK to be that stupid?

Yep. We crossed the bridge when we allowed a former minister go to the Phoenix Park to pay for rent boys and his account of what he was doing there went unchallenged.

The hysteria that followed the verdict was just that, hysteria. Could you imagine if a prominent woman was charged with making a false accusation of rape, was tried, found not guilty and a load of people posted up #wedontbelieveher and organised marches?

[Oldschool]

A society that decides it is not accepting of the decision of a jury of their peers is a kangaroo court society.
Remember the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six.
There was no miscarriage of justice this time and yet the accused are to be hung anyway.

[BlueBlue]

What the IRFU have to deal with are 2 players who have been found not guilty of a crime but have found themselves to be on the opposite side of what society now finds acceptable. Do the IRFU risk in this golden era, getting on the wrong side of society and new social norms that are very emotive and passionate, do they risk being seen to tolerate, condone or even support such people. That's the question, its not ahh sure the lads have been found not guilty, its grand, lets get them back playing.

How much do you risk for 2 players? In the cold light of a purely business decision not much. When that business decision aligns with how society see's itself, where it wants to get to, the answer is even more clear.

I’m not sure I agree – what the IRFU has to deal with is 2 employees with contracts of employment, and they have to deal with them in accordance with the IRFU’s HR and disciplinary procedures, ensuring that all relevant employment law and regulations are adhered to, and with regard to precedent set in previous dealings with employees.

Respectfully the IRFU has no business taking on itself to interpret what “society’s” view of anything is, and it certainly has no business attempting to bring that into play into its dealings with its employees - that way is a fast-track to an employment tribunal.

Not really. There are huge differences between a pro sports contract and normal employment. For one, normal employment is full time, not a contract with a defined ending period where both parties get to walk away. Also in a normal everyday employment contract there are no penalties for bringing the profession you work for into disrepute, there are many other differences but these are just 2.

I'm not arguing that this is simple in any case and that said individuals do not have employment rights. I'm saying the IRFU is in a difficult spot, that this is not as simple as found not guilty, lets lace up the boots and play rugby. My guess is that given any possibility of a way out, of unloading these 2, the IRFU will take it.

[BlueBlue]

I think people are missing a very major point here, the 4 defendants were found not guilty. That does not mean that society has found their behaviours and attitudes acceptable. In fact I think society finds these lads repugnant in the highest order. There have been comments on here that in times past this and that was said, but it wasn't written down so it didn't come back to haunt us, well maybe, but that again misses the point. Society has moved on, it always does. What was said in the past is not at issue, what's at issue is that society no longer has a tolerance for this stuff. There is a world wide movement based on society being vocal about no accepting this stuff and being vocal about it not being acceptable, in fact being silent and letting it pass is not an acceptable course of action and men in particular are being called out to be part of the solution not the problem.

If you agree or not, makes no difference. The majority / the prevailing attitude of society have made the decision. There are many examples of this, the best probably being marriage equality in Ireland. We went from it being unthinkable to being unthinkable not to have it in a blink of an eye. This is another inflection point, and it no different. Its not about sport and Ulster Rugby's need and we'd like to have some player for the world cup.

What the IRFU have to deal with are 2 players who have been found not guilty of a crime but have found themselves to be on the opposite side of what society now finds acceptable. Do the IRFU risk in this golden era, getting on the wrong side of society and new social norms that are very emotive and passionate, do they risk being seen to tolerate, condone or even support such people. That's the question, its not ahh sure the lads have been found not guilty, its grand, lets get them back playing.

How much do you risk for 2 players? In the cold light of a purely business decision not much. When that business decision aligns with how society see's itself, where it wants to get to, the answer is even more clear.

That's all well and good for "Society".
The problem tho is that the IRFU/Ulster are stuck with the legal fallout.
ie contractual obligations to the players that society can't just wave a magic wand and make disappear.
So given all the constraints what do you suggest the IRFU and players do (it must be workable for them) to resolve the issue.
Workable includes things like livelihood, employer references etc maybe even (maybe no doubt) a demand to be restored to their previous job.

That my friend is the situation, but the IRFU will be judged on how it responds / handles this none the less. It could be a case of which is less damage. These players have rights, but so do the employer. There will be public opinion, questions that require answers, will there not ?

[BlueBlue]

I think people are missing a very major point here, the 4 defendants were found not guilty. That does not mean that society has found their behaviours and attitudes acceptable. In fact I think society finds these lads repugnant in the highest order. There have been comments on here that in times past this and that was said, but it wasn't written down so it didn't come back to haunt us, well maybe, but that again misses the point. Society has moved on, it always does. What was said in the past is not at issue, what's at issue is that society no longer has a tolerance for this stuff. There is a world wide movement based on society being vocal about no accepting this stuff and being vocal about it not being acceptable, in fact being silent and letting it pass is not an acceptable course of action and men in particular are being called out to be part of the solution not the problem.

If you agree or not, makes no difference. The majority / the prevailing attitude of society have made the decision. There are many examples of this, the best probably being marriage equality in Ireland. We went from it being unthinkable to being unthinkable not to have it in a blink of an eye. This is another inflection point, and it no different. Its not about sport and Ulster Rugby's need and we'd like to have some player for the world cup.

What the IRFU have to deal with are 2 players who have been found not guilty of a crime but have found themselves to be on the opposite side of what society now finds acceptable. Do the IRFU risk in this golden era, getting on the wrong side of society and new social norms that are very emotive and passionate, do they risk being seen to tolerate, condone or even support such people. That's the question, its not ahh sure the lads have been found not guilty, its grand, lets get them back playing.

How much do you risk for 2 players? In the cold light of a purely business decision not much. When that business decision aligns with how society see's itself, where it wants to get to, the answer is even more clear.

I do have sympathy for the IRFU/UB on how they have to deal with this whole mess.

Sponsors will have the make their call on brand association. They will take account of the fact that PJ and SO are not guilty of any crime but also how society perceives their actions and attitudes. Remember regardless of how they were viewed before they are now the most famous Ulster Rugby players.

I know some Ulster Fans are being defensive of their players, but they should look at the damage caused to Ulster Rugby directly by the lads stupidity, actions and attitudes, how many sponsors will be lining up for their brand to be pictured with PJ/SO? Forget the PSNI, PPS, media, criminal cases etc. - Jacome and Juicers when they needed a "dont f%~k up" whats app group.

Exactly.