Who will decide

[Rem99]

I think an appropriate sanction for PJ and SO would be retrospective with the assurance that they will be effectively on probation going forward for a set time.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Yes, but they weren't suspended before the trial. They were stood down.

"To allow the players time to address this matter fully, the IRFU and Ulster Rugby have agreed that they will be relieved of their duties and obligations until the conclusion of this process." This sounds like suspension to me!

[Setanta]

They are Nordies, hung, drawn and quartered at the very least!

[Snipe Watson]

I think an appropriate sanction for PJ and SO would be retrospective with the assurance that they will be effectively on probation going forward for a set time.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Yes, but they weren't suspended before the trial. They were stood down.

"To allow the players time to address this matter fully, the IRFU and Ulster Rugby have agreed that they will be relieved of their duties and obligations until the conclusion of this process." This sounds like suspension to me!

It may sound like it, but it was a carefully chosen form of words that was used. As we have seen, exact wording is vitally important. Every statement will be parsed.

[justinr73]

Rio Ferdinand got 3 games for calling a lady a "sket" on Twitter- (no me neither but I then I wasn't familiar with the terms "brasses" )

Did you not watch the Sweeney Justin? Maybe you're too young. Good old cockney rhyming slang for a prostitute.

Early to bed ready for playschool in those days Merv.

No tail for me then.

Wasn't much for quite a while either!

[BaggyTrousers]

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.

Snipe, normally I would do you the honour of reading your post fully before commenting, however, every rule has it's exceptions, so I got to: "The IRFU need their handling of this whole saga to be viewed as thorough and fair" and at that point I almost choked on my Bombay & Ginger.

Can you tell me what in the name of blue fu'ck is fair about two innocent men who have endured, 21 months of uncertainty about whether they would remain at liberty on foot of a blatantly spurious charge that should never have made it to court, who have had a full season of their brief professional career wasted for no good reason, and in one case at least have had the ability to earn a living ripped from him and having to apply for legal aid having exhausted his savings, having been vilified by every mouthy harridan and arsehole seeking their moment in the sun.

And you dare talk about fairness?

Fu'ck me but that is bullshite Snipe, the FIRFU are a pathetic spineless organisation running scared and unwilling to support their employees who are guilty of nothing other than a few injudicious words that they foolishly thought were private.

Sorry Snipe, you are a top bloke but that is just horseshite, there is nothing whatsoever fair about the FIRFUCs capitulation to the moronic chattering and shrieking mob of people who disregard the legal process and blindly pursue ruining the lives of young men who at the very very worst are guilty of talking shyte.

I am so fu'cking cross that people who should know better are tiptoeing along the PC line of bullshit.

#FIRFUspinelessCs.

[BaggyTrousers]

They are Nordies, hung, drawn and quartered at the very least!

You know what Santa, it's a crying shame but I believe you are spot on. Should this happen in Munster or Leinster the outcry would cow the FIRFU into a realistic treatment of the players, ie, you've been to hell and back for 21 months, welcome back lads.

I tell you what, if even one person here can genuinely say they think the treatment for the SDC semifinalists would not have been different I will withdraw that comment.

I believe that the FIRFUCs don't give a shyte about Ulster.

[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.

Snipe, normally I would do you the honour of reading your post fully before commenting, however, every rule has it's exceptions, so I got to: "The IRFU need their handling of this whole saga to be viewed as thorough and fair" and at that point I almost choked on my Bombay & Ginger.

Can you tell me what in the name of blue fu'ck is fair about two innocent men who have endured, 21 months of uncertainty about whether they would remain at liberty on foot of a blatantly spurious charge that should never have made it to court, who have had a full season of their brief professional career wasted for no good reason, and in one case at least have had the ability to earn a living ripped from him and having to apply for legal aid having exhausted his savings, having been vilified by every mouth harridan and arsehole seeking their moment in the sun.

And you dare talk about fairness?

Fu'ck me but that is bullshite Snipe, the FIRFU are a pathetic spineless organisation running scared and unwilling to support their employees who are guilty of nothing other than a few injudicious words that they foolishly thought were private.

Sorry Snipe, you are a top bloke but that is just horseshite, there is nothing whatsoever fair about the FIRFUCs capitulation to the moronic chattering and shrieking mob of people who disregard the legal process and blindly pursue ruining the lives of young men who at the very very worst are guilty of talking shyte.

I am so fu'cking cross that people who should know better are tiptoeing along the PC line of bullshit.

#FIRFUspinelessCs.

Get away up the yard ye galoot.
Did you actually read any of my post or did you just scan it and see the phrase that offended?

AFAIK, the IRFU are not rerunning the trial.
They are examining whether the messages amount to a breach of the code of conduct. This is a totally separate thing, an internal review which could not start until after the trial.
It needs to be "thorough and fair" two things. the investigation needs to be thorough and the decision needs to be fair.
You've been helped.................

[rumncoke]

Snipe the fact is an employer has no right to the private correspondence of an employee unless the employee has been previously notified in the terms of his employment

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act

For the IRFU to take action on private correspondence could be a breach of the players human rights ?

When the prosecutor introduced the private messages into the court case he failed to recognise the can of worms he was opening with messages which in my view did little to prove or disprove the allegation of the claimant .

Giving the prosecution the benefit of the doubt they didn’t realise that the messages would be used twice to convict the defendants in the court of public opinion and thirdly as a possible reason to terminate their employment .





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Snipe Watson]

Snipe the fact is an employer has no right to the private correspondence of an employee unless the employee has been previously notified in the terms of his employment

Article 8 of the Human Rights Act

For the IRFU to take action on private correspondence could be a breach of the players human rights ?

When the prosecutor introduced the private messages into the court case he failed to recognise the can of worms he was opening with messages which in my view did little to prove or disprove the allegation of the claimant .

Giving the prosecution the benefit of the doubt they didn’t realise that the messages would be used twice to convict the defendants in the court of public opinion and thirdly as a possible reason to terminate their employment .





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't worry Rum'n.
Kevin Winters is the go to man for human rights cases.

[Jackie Brown]

I've taken the extraordinary measure of removing myself from social media. I couldn't trust myself not to shoot someone in the face and since I'm on a rolling contract as a teacher I can't really be doing that. Only ever dipped in and out of Twatter but feck me sideways it's inhabited by swivel eyed loons. Can't hose them all down sadly. Facebook is close family, friends and a few work colleagues but even then it was getting too risky with the mouthing I was doing.

From browsing other forums there seems to have been a calming of the waters with regards to the whole thing through the week.

Munster fans is full of sanctimonious drivel but they keep banning all discussion on it due to the Twatter like comments. Maybe they're jealous their boys weren't invited to the roast?

Leinster fans has been quite contemplative about it. Most contributors are of the feeling of, they've been suspended all season, messages lack class but not much more, most are attributed to a nonUlster player, hope the IRFU sees sense.

Planet Rugby is similar. All comments regard the Gilroy thing as an utter nonsense.

I'm quietly hopeful that both SO and PJ will be told to report for preseason in late July. I will hold fire on the FIRFU and UB until something is announced. Although if I still haven't forgiven them for forcing RP out I'm never forgiving them if they do the wrong thing here.

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[Jackie Brown]

When the prosecutor introduced the private messages into the court case he failed to recognise the can of worms he was opening with messages which in my view did little to prove or disprove the allegation of the claimant .

Giving the prosecution the benefit of the doubt they didn’t realise that the messages would be used twice to convict the defendants in the court of public opinion and thirdly as a possible reason to terminate their employment.

PPS knew fine well what would happen when they released those private, circumstancial messages. It was a smear campaign from day 1 aimed to destroy their careers and reputations rather than get a conviction. I feel the justice system has let everyone down in this case. Someone should be made to answer for it.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[nonplussed]

All this is immaterial, there will be a parting of ways between the guys and the Union with an undisclosed payoff to get them to go away. Their talk of wanting to go back to play for Ulster and Ireland is just grandstanding before they go in there. I can see them deep down wanting to get out of this incestuous little hole.

That's my gut feeling

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

+1


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[nev666]

Personally I see no reason PJ and SO should not be reinstated as soon as, get them on the pitch before the end of the season. The Gilroy episode is a mockery of a side show.

There is a 2nd trial by social media going on and its almost a perfect storm. The whatsapp messages + the "metoo" going on + the ibelieveher horseshite + the abortion referendum in the south coming up has made a recipe for disaster.

However i fully expect to see the phrases "bringing the IRFU and Ulster Rugby into disrepute" and "contracts terminated by mutual agreement" in the not too distant.

[rumncoke]

By mutual agreement is going to cost some money
Olding broke and now legal aided Jackson and family out about 1/2 million

Sack me I sue

I doubt if Paddy is in gratuitous mood at the moment and after 21 months of brad pitt I don’t blame him



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deraless]

When the prosecutor introduced the private messages into the court case he failed to recognise the can of worms he was opening with messages which in my view did little to prove or disprove the allegation of the claimant .

Giving the prosecution the benefit of the doubt they didn’t realise that the messages would be used twice to convict the defendants in the court of public opinion and thirdly as a possible reason to terminate their employment.

PPS knew fine well what would happen when they released those private, circumstancial messages. It was a smear campaign from day 1 aimed to destroy their careers and reputations rather than get a conviction. I feel the justice system has let everyone down in this case. Someone should be made to answer for it.


Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

Completely agree JB. Rum definitely holds the prosecution in higher esteem than I do. Now I know it's just a job and that if he was on the other side etc, but he had no evidence (and what reliable evidence there was contradicted the prosecution case ie the complainant was telling porkies) so he had to rely on soundbites, making out herself was some kind of Little Flower and by putting on his best menacing voice when referring to the defendants.

He might be a good barrister but you have to seriously doubt his judgement scooping that one. And he came across as a right tool. Brendy seemed much more fun.

It was rumoured in court that due to the length of this trial he missed out on some other big case in Engerland.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk