Ulster Rugby trial -continued

I do like Noeline Blackwell's take on all this though and I hope the IRFU listen.

For those having difficulty with access to the IT, her conclusion is:

Ms Blackwell said “there has to be more to it that a drunken night out”.

“What happened is that some of the most prominent rugby players in this country were seen and have acknowledged the most disrespectful and derogatory behaviour towards a young woman and other young women,” she said.

“There has to be a real examination of their disrespectful and derogatory behaviour in order to identify what they as role models, people who are held up as the best in the land, would think of women, as was shown in the WhatsApp texts, in a way that they themselves recognise were hurtful and harmful.

“It has to be looked at not just in the context of what they said that night, but whether that it is a way of operating within rugby, that rugby condones or allows to happen.”

The Belfast Telegraph reporting of this is extraordinary. There is no description of the pornographic messages (or even mention that there was more than one), no pointing out that one message was of a "spit-roasting" and sent by Harrison, and was thus proof that the men had all discussed what happened the next day - which they all denied in court.

The BT stress is all on a tweet

There is no mention of the unwillingness of the character witnesses to come forward, no mention of the fact that the judge agreed that the jury were to be told that Rory Best had been instructed to attend (even though he actually hadn't), no mention that the judge said "all defence teams had a chance to review her closing remarks and that she had made charges based on their recommendations." (as an aside, what the fuck? Since when did judges have to ask defence council what they can say?)

It's truly bizarre what The Belfast Telegraph hasn't reported.

The worldwide rugby forum on which I post has it's fair share of "it's just banter" and "boys will be boys" type posts but by and large it's scathing and revolted by the actions of the Ulster 4.

There is more disagreement when it comes to whether they should play again. Many feel that their behaviour off the pitch has no bearing on whether they should be picked. However an equally large (perhaps even larger) percentage feel that "bringing the game into disrepute" is an offence which will see the players not selected. There is precedent for this, particularly in Australia and NZ (a lot of the posters on the forum are southern hemisphere).

I don't work in a public facing role and even my employment contract has a gross misconduct clause for bringing the company into disrepute so surely role models like professional sports people have this as a standard clause?

As Ulster rugby hold themselves up as a family friendly club it their review does allow Jackson etc. to be selected again I think they will lose lots of supporters.

Oddly the Irish posters seem to see all of this along sectarian lines which I just can't understand but then I'm an English atheist so I guess I never will understand this.

My DP played for a (now) premiership club back in the old amateur days and he's as disgusted by this as I am. He says that they had "banter" and some girls were more forward than was probably sensible (naïve) but he can't remember an instance of anyone in his club who behaved anywhere near the likes Jackson, Olding et al.

My son plays rugby and there is fairly universal criticism of these men in his rugby team's club house too. Obviously it's a huge topic of conversation and they have a growing woman's team so plenty of women with an opinion at the bar!

I've been a season ticket holder for the club I support for over 20 years and been on club tours, followed the Lions etc... and NEVER seen this level of misogyny. It's absolutely foul that these men can treat this woman with such a lack of respect or basic humanity and dignity.

I'm interested in the idea of an "unlawful penetration" law being introduced. I can't help feeling that any form of justice would be better than none even if it's a lesser charge.

The evidence which was omitted has sickened me still further.

While I may not agree with the politics of Naomi Long her response to the remark about "middle class girls" was absolutely spot on

I can't believe the evidence that was omitted, it was pretty damming imho.
Also the reporting of the withheld evidence from most media has been ridiculous, the Newsletter led with the bit about Naomi, I rarely agree with the Alliance leader but for once I do, although the comments under the facebook link are awful, most as suspected about her looks, and LOTS from other women.

Stop the planet, I want to get off.

@morningrunner that is another very good point. The casual lack of morals from these 4 men seems to be discounted at every turn.

Rugby is a gentleman's game. These men have proven themselves not to be gentlemen. I want my children to look up to successful sports players as role models. I'm not against them being employed, just not in this capacity.

Ditto
Applause TheOnylLivingBoyinNewCross

👏👏👏
TheOnlyLivingBoyinNewCross

Let's remember too that the standard of proof in defamation cases is only the balance of probabilities.

Excellent post! I agree with your honestly held opinion.

So is libel. Tread carefully.

A little bit of research suggests that we can offer the following defence:

"The defence of "fair comment" may be available to a defendant who can show that the defamatory statement amounted to an opinion which was honestly held and based up facts which were true."

Based upon the facts that were not disputed at the court case and may therefore be held to be true - that the woman was bleeding and that she left the house in a distressed state after more than one man engaged in sexual activity with her and that the men involved in the evening's events subsequently exchanged messages which were "degrading and offensive" (Paddy Jackson's own words) - I can state that my honestly held opinion is that the men on trial, although found not guilty in a court of law, exemplify the worst elements of the twenty-first century rape culture. And further, my honestly held opinion based on facts which are true is that these men, although they have been found not guilty of the crime of rape and have the right to earn a living, should not be in a position where they are looked up to as role models by young people.

Does anyone know the relevance of the yellow flowed that were sent to the complainant and which were not revealed at trial. I can’t see anything that explains it.

Cheers for posting Anne. You've reminded me I need to get on to Ulster Rugby's sponsors to tell them what'll happen to my business if Jackson and Olding come back and IRFU, I hadn't got round to it yet. Will do now though!

Calls other posters bigots, then threatens possible libel action. Amazing.

Paddy Jackson is a poor excuse for a man.
Yes anne I'm kink/slut shaming him and his friends and I don't care. Violent group sex with a woman where you havent established enthusiastic consent or safe words etc is grim and deserves to be judged.
They are the archetype of misogyny and rape culture.

I would have expected the defence to say if it was his blood.

But he will have had his DNA taken, that would show him as a liar. DNA testing would also show if it was female or male.

#SueMeAnne could catch on

Well even "SueMePaddy" apologised for his behaviour outside court. So I think we're allowed to be disgusted by the behaviour he apologised for.

He disgusts me, and so do his mates.

Is that a threat?

SueMeAnne

I think employment law allows for people to be sacked even if they aren't actually convicted of crimes. I suspect most jobs have some sort of "bringing the firm into disrepute" clause, or a "reasonable behaviour" or "reasonable expectation" clause.

I think most people who work with children should know something about respect and boundaries and morals and good behaviour - lessons these men seem to have missed.

They have shown that they are totally unsuitable to do that part of their job (the ambassador, representative, role model part). That's why they should lose their jobs - they can no longer do them, because of their admitted behaviour and attitudes, nothing to do with being found guilty or not in court.

Those men behaved appallingly, is my opinion.The evidence in court leads me to that opinion, the evidence reported in the media. We're allowed to say that. Regardless of verdict. It's a fair opinion. The men's own testimony/evidence in court leads me to believe that.

So is libel. Tread carefully.