Who will decide

[BaggyTrousers]

It is, surely, the employers right to not just look after the physical welfare of their employees but also their mental health & from what I can glean from news reports, blogs, forums etc this has not been mentioned. There is at least one member of those sitting in judgement who has had a family tragedy due to mental health issues. I can only hope that when this witch hunt ends that those involved are welcomed back to the fold as intact as possible .

This, absolutely this.

Is anyone at UR actually looking out for these lads & offering them support??

Doesn’t feel like it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We have no idea whatsoever if UR are providing support for the guys or not.
I've heard nothing at all that suggests UR are anything other than supportive right through the process. The guys have rights and one of those rights is the right to privacy. The employers will be required to keep confidentiality. This is not like a criminal trial held in public, it's an internal matter conducted in private.

I don’t disagree with any of that Snipe but following Craig Gilroy’s public outing yesterday you’d have to wonder...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What happened to Craig was basically entrapment. The IRFU had no choice, but to include him.

Yeah, they very much did have a choice, they could have grown a pair of balls between them, even one tiny little pair of swingers, after all, you'd hardly expect that shower to manage a good ripe pair of plums between them.

#fu@Warren Gatland

I'm finished with them, like Gary I'll be at the game on 13th to say my goodbyes, they can stick the Weegies game up their arsepipes.

[Rem99]

I think the best outcome we can hope for is that the IRFU lets the fuss die down a bit and then draws parallels with the Marler and Bastareaud incidents (which I think it justifiably can) and imposes shortish bans.

The guys have already served a 7+ month ban so are good to go asap!

[BaggyTrousers]

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/cou ... 73969.html

I wonder who won't be wanting this. I see Olding's a solicitor is quoted in the report as fighting against the lifting of restrictions. I was under the impression the prosecution would have had more to lose from this.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

The prosecution doesn't have anything to lose.
The case is over.

The trial has ended, but the circus shows no sign of leaving town.

It is running out of steam.
the gutter press want to screw more mileage out of the story. They want the restrictions lifted so that they can pick over the entrails like scavengers.

I think that your assessment is too kind to them Snipe, I suspect that they want to be seen firmly on the side of the chattering classes who love to be offended, by anything that is "trending on twitter", bakebook or any other place.

As for motive, I believe that they have vain hopes that if they become the champions of downtrodden weemin, be they outrageous liars or not, they may just boost flagging circulation and or clickbait.

They have no higher purpose, none whatsoever.

[BaggyTrousers]

Its ok lads. Folau has just said gays go to hell so spotlight has shifted already.

I hope the ill-bred gobshite dies with a rugby post jammed up his hole. There are few things in life I detest more than some athletic clown delivering moral sermonising. I hope he dies soon from something especially painful, that apart he is dead to me already.

[BaggyTrousers]

So. Would Folau's opinions contravene UR's "values". Given the current "7 commandments" they might. We now know that private expression of opinions is no defence. As a precaution, I recommend standing down any player who is suspected of practicing a fundamentalist Christian faith.

In the current situation, that would appear prudent Merv, can anyone provide a list of UR based God-botherers? I assume Terry Slogan will be top of the list? #obsequiouswankerandFIRFU'sthoughtcrimezealot

Right, I'm off to f*ck some sluts....................... if I can get my zimmerframe out of first gear, rope a few captives and tranquilise them.

[jean valjean]

What's the odds there are other messages not released during the trial, but which the media are desperate to get their hands on. I reckon any further scandal will firmly nail the 2 boys future, however they may also relate to the complainants messaging also. Tough one for the judge next week to call although they can't but not take into account the publicity so far generated.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

[Snipe Watson]

https://m.independent.ie/irish-news/cou ... 73969.html

I wonder who won't be wanting this. I see Olding's a solicitor is quoted in the report as fighting against the lifting of restrictions. I was under the impression the prosecution would have had more to lose from this.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

The prosecution doesn't have anything to lose.
The case is over.

The trial has ended, but the circus shows no sign of leaving town.

It is running out of steam.
the gutter press want to screw more mileage out of the story. They want the restrictions lifted so that they can pick over the entrails like scavengers.

I think that your assessment is too kind to them Snipe, I suspect that they want to be seen firmly on the side of the chattering classes who love to be offended, by anything that is "trending on twitter", bakebook or any other place.

As for motive, I believe that they have vain hopes that if they become the champions of downtrodden weemin, be they outrageous liars or not, they may just boost flagging circulation and or clickbait.

They have no higher purpose, none whatsoever.

You were giving off to me for calling them parasites the other day.

[BaggyTrousers]

Nah, that was journalists, not filth merchants.

[BaggyTrousers]

Not being a legal eagle, I seel learned advice. With the trial now part of history, would any journalist/scumbucket/filthpeddler be entitled to publish the contents of a closed forum which is no longer accessible as evidence? Would WhatsApp have any duty to protect a closed group and decline access? Would anyone in possession of the entire group history face possible defamation charges for releasing it for publication?

So many questions, the above are a specimen sample.

[Jackie Brown]

What's the odds there are other messages not released during the trial, but which the media are desperate to get their hands on. I reckon any further scandal will firmly nail the 2 boys future, however they may also relate to the complainants messaging also. Tough one for the judge next week to call although they can't but not take into account the publicity so far generated.

Sent from my SM-G935F using Tapatalk

You'd think given the uproar and lives being targeted for ruin that the judge would reel the journalists to go shoite.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Jackie Brown]

Not being a legal eagle, I seel learned advice. With the trial now part of history, would any journalist/scumbucket/filthpeddler be entitled to publish the contents of a closed forum which is no longer accessible as evidence? Would WhatsApp have any duty to protect a closed group and decline access? Would anyone in possession of the entire group history face possible defamation charges for releasing it for publication?

So many questions, the above are a specimen sample.

I don't believe WhatsApp have access to it's users messages. They are encrypted, only access is from a user's phone.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[big mervyn]

Yeah, they very much did have a choice, they could have grown a pair of balls between them, even one tiny little pair of swingers, after all, you'd hardly expect that shower to manage a good ripe pair of plums between them.

I also think they had a choice. PJ and SO were already on suspension pending an internal review into the whole sorry episode. To suspend another player on the sole basis of one private message is draconian to say the least. Surely the future conduct of all players and their use of public and private social media could have been addressed without the need for this?

[BR]

Not being a legal eagle, I seel learned advice. With the trial now part of history, would any journalist/scumbucket/filthpeddler be entitled to publish the contents of a closed forum which is no longer accessible as evidence? Would WhatsApp have any duty to protect a closed group and decline access? Would anyone in possession of the entire group history face possible defamation charges for releasing it for publication?

So many questions, the above are a specimen sample.

If the data was given as evidence in court it is reportable subject to any ruling by the judge (and of course that may not apply if you are publishing in a different jurisdiction).

[Mac]

The public mood has been further inflamed by political culture warriors who deploy concepts like ‘toxic masculinity’ and ‘rape culture’, in what can at times seem like an attempt to short-circuit due process. In some cases they don’t appear particularly interested in determining whether individuals broke the law whenever sexual offences are alleged. Instead, they seem to be moved more by the emotive force of the allegations, rather than the dispassionate, and not always satisfying, search for justice.

......just about sums up what we are seeing atm. A feckin "Social media War".

https://reaction.life/irish-rugby-rape- ... media-war/

[Snipe Watson]

Yeah, they very much did have a choice, they could have grown a pair of balls between them, even one tiny little pair of swingers, after all, you'd hardly expect that shower to manage a good ripe pair of plums between them.

I also think they had a choice. PJ and SO were already on suspension pending an internal review into the whole sorry episode. To suspend another player on the sole basis of one private message is draconian to say the least. Surely the future conduct of all players and their use of public and private social media could have been addressed without the need for this?

I see it differently. Craig's case cannot be viewed in isolation and out of context, it's part of the same scenario.
Correct me if I'm wrong here. Paddy and Stu are being investigated by the IRFU for their online activities, not their bedroom activities which were ruled on by the court. However the #mob are conflating the two.
The IRFU need their handling of this whole saga to be viewed as thorough and fair, so how could Craig not be drawn in when he was involved in the conversations?

The more I think about this I am even more convinced that all three will be suspended for their crass online comments with Paddy and Stu's suspensions already served**.

The IRFU press release will need to make it clear that they have no right whatsoever or jurisdiction to look into the criminal aspect of the case and that the punishments are for the inappropriate text or WhatsApp messages.
It's in the interests of the guys to cooperate with the IRFU and Paddy's brief statement made it clear that was his intention. There needs to be a solution found that allows the IRFU out of the difficult situation that they are in, complies with employment law and creates a plausible scenario for the non-gutter press to report as a solution.
EDIT ** this may not work as they were not suspended, but stood down or relieved of playing duties to prepare for the trial. So they may all be suspended for a period of time.