That is my memory too.
Paddy sent one innocuous message and was found not guilty as charged, but dismissed.
Gilroy sent a number of distasteful (shall we say?) messages despite not even being there (in response to messages from others, not Paddy), and served a two week suspension.
Paddy was dismissed because some young women came uninvited into his home, then uninvited went up to his bedroom after he had retired, alone, for the night. She then performed certain acts and the following morning cried rape. Much of this witnessed by another young independent female witness. Strangely the #webelieveher crowd don't believe her, but then her evidence doesn't fit their agenda.
If BBC hadn't broken an injunction to name Paddy and Stu, it is highly unlikely it would even have come to trial and would have been rightly dismissed without anyone's name officially coming out.
The fact that it went to trial because BBC named them, then used that as their defence against contempt of court for breaking the injunction, claiming it was in the public interest. A self-fulfilling prophecy.
The public weren't interested when they didn't know who was involved, and the fact that the cases were thrown out so quickly by a jury of their peers, shows there was nothing to actually be interested in. How could there be? The accusations were false.
Let me be clear - I do not defend in any way what Paddy and Stu did. It's not how I expect people to behave, but I know I'm of another generation and also know that many of the younger generation behave in this manner every weekend (or even during the week) often under the influence of alcohol sold by self righteous drinks companies, nothing is ever said about it, and no one gets sacked.I don't particularly like that behaviour, but why should two young men lose their jobs because one woman changed her mind and made false accusations the following day?
I understand that a similar situation arose elsewhere within Irish Rugby, was even filmed and spread on social media. The young lady was regretful the following day, but rather than falsely accuse some, she accepted her own responsibility for her own actions, and the IRFU hushed it all up and protected the players involved.
No one can tell me that the IRFU didn't apply a double standard.
But hey, we're raking over old ground and I have no doubt some of the revisionists have been at work for ages already.
That is my memory anyway.