General Rugby Discussion II

c.p.w.g.w

mfceiling wrote: »

He lashed out literally hours after the trial. That was understandable - maybe Ill advised but understandable. Within a few weeks his head was down and there hasn't been a whimper from him. His social media has been very quiet bar the odd picture of his dog. He hasn't really done anything of note so it's a bit unfair to day he hasn't helped his case along the way. I think if he'd stayed in France for the rest of his days he probably would have been ok. If he came back to England in 10 years there still would be a public outcry. There's a cohort of people who will never let this go.

Let's hope he can secure a nice big pay packet, clear his legal debts and live with bit of peace. Would be a great opportunity for one of diageo's competitors to come in a sponsor LI

NeonWolf

Bazzo wrote: »

Garces to retire after the world cup. Himself and Barnes are two big names that will need replacing on the international circuit.

Thank god. He's absolutely abysmal. Dying minutes of 2nd and 3rd lions tests case in point.

Clegg

The Irish Times reports that Paddy Whiskey is now considering its sponsorship of London Irish.

Faugheen

mfceiling wrote: »

He lashed out literally hours after the trial. That was understandable - maybe Ill advised but understandable. Within a few weeks his head was down and there hasn't been a whimper from him. His social media has been very quiet bar the odd picture of his dog. He hasn't really done anything of note so it's a bit unfair to day he hasn't helped his case along the way. I think if he'd stayed in France for the rest of his days he probably would have been ok. If he came back to England in 10 years there still would be a public outcry. There's a cohort of people who will never let this go.

His statement after court was completely stupid and made it look like he didn't learn anything about himself or his conduct.

Compare to Olding who only pointed the finger of blame at himself and seemed to understand what was in front of him then tried to save face.

Jackson's apology a week after threatening to sue anyone who dared think differently of him then looked disingenuous because he initially didn't even reflect on his behaviour.

Then talking about people not knowing what he has gone through in an attempt to garner sympathy was never going to work and just negated his apology and what he said about having no one to blame but himself. He simply doesn't get it.

He made an absolute balls of it post-trial.

mfceiling

Faugheen wrote: »

His statement after court was completely stupid and made it look like he didn't learn anything about himself or his conduct.

Compare to Olding who only pointed the finger of blame at himself and seemed to understand what was in front of him then tried to save face.

Jackson's apology a week after threatening to sue anyone who dared think differently of him then looked disingenuous because he initially didn't even reflect on his behaviour.

Then talking about people not knowing what he has gone through in an attempt to garner sympathy was never going to work and just negated his apology and what he said about having no one to blame but himself. He simply doesn't get it.

He made an absolute balls of it post-trial.

Post trial yes but since then?

The guts of a year where his name hasn't been mentioned and the minute he signs for an English club the knives are out. I can't fathom what the time period is for the lad to come back to play ball close to home? Most of the twitter mob don't have an answer either but I suspect it's never.

Dog Botherer

So um, on a less controversial topic.

Rugby Sevens is one of the featured sports on the new Mario & Sonic Olympics game, second time in a row now. Great for spreading the game to a new audience.

troyzer

NeonWolf wrote: »

Bazzo wrote: »

Garces to retire after the world cup. Himself and Barnes are two big names that will need replacing on the international circuit.

Thank god. He's absolutely abysmal. Dying minutes of 2nd and 3rd lions tests case in point.

Yeah, he was so awful he looked identical to Romain Poite in the third test.

Yeah_Right

troyzer wrote: »

Yeah, he was so awful he looked identical to Romain Poite in the third test.

He was the AR that convinced Poite it was a knock on and not a penalty. It was such a BS call.

troyzer

Yeah_Right wrote: »

troyzer wrote: »

Yeah, he was so awful he looked identical to Romain Poite in the third test.

He was the AR that convinced Poite it was a knock on and not a penalty. It was such a BS call.

Don't be salty. It was perfectly legitimate. Made total sense.

Burkie1203

Israel Folau at it again

Clegg

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Israel Folau at it again

Yep.

Led a sermon at his church where he denounced transgender children and gender fluidity as the work of the devil. He's attacking kids now. No doubt he'll cry about being the victim when he's criticised for this.

Squidgy Black

The man's an idiot. Plain and simple.

Any form of legal argument around misinterpretation of his original social media posts are gone out the window. I'd say his legal team are furious.

troyzer

Squidgy Black wrote: »

The man's an idiot. Plain and simple.

Any form of legal argument around misinterpretation of his original social media posts are gone out the window. I'd say his legal team are furious.

He could make serious money as a martyred mega pastor in the states.

Maybe that's his goal.

NeonWolf

Clegg wrote: »

Yep.

Led a sermon at his church where he denounced transgender children and gender fluidity as the work of the devil. He's attacking kids now. No doubt he'll cry about being the victim when he's criticised for this.

I have to admire his straight talking consistency. He has doubled down and is unrepentant.

In the face of losing his whole livelihood his stance is unchanged and head unbowed.

His comments were disgusting and his religion is a load of garbage and doesn't hold any truck with me but I do admire the steadfastness with which he is ploughing on regardless.

Its refreshing compared to the normal faux squirming apologies we have become accustomed to in the social media age.

Faugheen

NeonWolf wrote: »

I have to admire his straight talking consistency. He has doubled down and is unrepentant.

In the face of losing his whole livelihood his stance is unchanged and head unbowed.

His comments were disgusting and his religion is a load of garbage and doesn't hold any truck with me but I do admire the steadfastness with which he is ploughing on regardless.

Its refreshing compared to the normal faux squirming apologies we have become accustomed to in the social media age.

You admire that he's being a hateful, divisive bastard?

How can you call his comments 'disgusting' but admire him just because he holds those beliefs? It's absolutely baffling.

bloodless_coup

Faugheen wrote: »

You admire that he's being a hateful, divisive bastard?

How can you call his comments 'disgusting' but admire him just because he holds those beliefs? It's absolutely baffling.

You constantly post defamatory slurs about Paddy Jackson while at the same time go whining to the site admins that anything negative about his accuser should be deleted / suppressed.

Go back to the Love Island thread, it's more your pace.

NeonWolf

Faugheen wrote: »

You admire that he's being a hateful, divisive bastard?

How can you call his comments 'disgusting' but admire him just because he holds those beliefs? It's absolutely baffling.

Ah a poster who attended the Cathy Newman school of twisted logic. Attributes words to me that i patently never used.

1.I don't like what he said.
2.I admire his conviction.
3.Both views can be held simultaneously

Is that clear enough? Or would you like to buttress your already fraudulent position on the matter.

troyzer

NeonWolf wrote: »

Faugheen wrote: »

You admire that he's being a hateful, divisive bastard?

How can you call his comments 'disgusting' but admire him just because he holds those beliefs? It's absolutely baffling.

Ah a poster who attended the Cathy Newman school of twisted logic. Attributes words to me that i patently never used.

1.I don't like what he said.
2.I admire his conviction.
3.Both views can be held simultaneously

Is that clear enough? Or would you like to buttress your already fraudulent position on the matter.

I understand what you're saying but I personally can't share it.

I mean, Hitler was a detestable human. I don't think I've ever heard someone describe his conviction as admirable.

BonnieSituation

troyzer wrote: »

I understand what you're saying but I personally can't share it.

I mean, Hitler was a detestable human. I don't think I've ever heard someone describe his conviction as admirable.

Admirable might not be the best word to use there.

But it's very obvious what NeonWolf is getting at.

I've said similar about Thatcher when it came to people comparing the current lot to her. But admirable* would be used as an adjective with at least an asterisk appended. Just in case.

Faugheen

doylefe wrote: »

You constantly post defamatory slurs about Paddy Jackson while at the same time go whining to the site admins that anything negative about his accuser should be deleted / suppressed.

Go back to the Love Island thread, it's more your pace.

What defamatory slurs are those now?

dregin

NeonWolf wrote: »

I have to admire his straight talking consistency. He has doubled down and is unrepentant.

In the face of losing his whole livelihood his stance is unchanged and head unbowed.

His comments were disgusting and his religion is a load of garbage and doesn't hold any truck with me but I do admire the steadfastness with which he is ploughing on regardless.

Its refreshing compared to the normal faux squirming apologies we have become accustomed to in the social media age.

Yeah, Hitler was pretty steadfast and unapologetic too. Fair play to him.

NeonWolf

troyzer wrote: »

I understand what you're saying but I personally can't share it.

I mean, Hitler was a detestable human. I don't think I've ever heard someone describe his conviction as admirable.

All Folau had to do was feign a sincere apology and he'd still have millions of dollars worth of gig and a career as a coach or a pundit post playing.He also would have gone to the world cup in 4 months. He was just crowned the top try scorer in super rugby history with a few good years left in him to pad that record even more. He's married to a reasonably high profile female sports woman in OZ also. Life was from the outside looking in "all good".

Hitler worked his way up from nothing with his mad beliefs to get what he wanted.

Folau already had everything and under the spectre of losing it all has stuck to his admittedly unpalatable beliefs . In the few days to weeks afterwards, he could have done a grovelling about turn to save all his creature comforts and secure his and his wives future , but he didn't.

Contrast this to Tiger Woods feigning contrition over decades of infidelity in order to keep Nike and their ilk onside.

Squidgy Black

He certainly stands by his convictions, I'll give him that. But I think admiration is a stretch, considering the things he has said are foul and there's no place in modern day society for the absolute drivel he's spouting. If anything it's actually quite sad that he's so far gone down the path of religious brainwashing that he doesn't seem to comprehend the offence he's causing other people and how he's completely destroying his reputation and standing, all in the name of "following god's word and orders".

Former Former

Squidgy Black wrote: »

The man's an idiot. Plain and simple.

Any form of legal argument around misinterpretation of his original social media posts are gone out the window. I'd say his legal team are furious.

Nah, his whole argument is that he's just practicing his religion. Standing up in a church and saying similar things to what got him fired strengthens his case, it doesn't weaken it.

NeonWolf

Former Former wrote: »

Nah, his whole argument is that he's just practicing his religion. Standing up in a church and saying similar things to what got him fired strengthens his case, it doesn't weaken it.

And certain religions seem to be given a free(er) pass in this sort of stuff.
Would love to see how it would be dealt with if it was SBW who made the instagram post.
Jacintha Ardern wouldn't know which way to virtue signal

is_that_so

Foxtrol wrote: »

They are only consistent in their inconsistency. Rugby over the years and right up to today is full of examples of out of control drinking, but Diageo haven’t shown even slight concern in public about players or teams until this case.

For me all the claims of concern about the drinking, text messages, other ‘non family value’ activities are just excuses to justify treating him like he was convicted of the crime that he was found not guilty of committing.

Companies redefine themselves all the time and it's really not a fast process. Sure they often grow a conscience but once it's there they need to stand over it.

All of this was utterly predictable. There's no denying it has rumbled on just as one cannot deny that it was very poor behaviour on his part vis a vis the texts. The case may still split people but that isn't really the case in terms of the text carry-on. The issues around it will remain to the fore until he steps away from rugby.

is_that_so

NeonWolf wrote: »

And certain religions seem to be given a free(er) pass in this sort of stuff.
Would love to see how it would be dealt with if it was SBW who made the instagram post.
Jacintha Ardern wouldn't know which way to virtue signal

I think it would have been the same. SBW has always had a bad boy vibe about him.

joseywhales

Isn't there some kind of internet rule where if you mention Hitler or the Nazis your argument is automatically considered false?

I think we expect a lot from a bunch of guys who spent their teenage years focused on physical development with no training in history, philosophy theology or whatever they decide to talk about. Being a great athlete should not give you authority on any subject outside of sport, we don't interview great car mechanics about ethics why should we pay heed to a rugby player on the subject. I always felt this was a problem in media in general, experts get minimal air time compared to "celebs" whose opinion on such matters is meaningless. In some sense I feel sorry for him, his ignorance is being exposed due to his false sense of confidence in an area where he is not competent and now maybe sunk cost is forcing him to entrench his position.

Of course we should deride him if we care about not alienating people but also I feel the lesson here is not to take athletes seriously in general on anything not related to sport.

sydthebeat

joseywhales wrote: »

Isn't there some kind of internet rule where if you mention Hitler or the Nazis your argument is automatically considered false?

I think we expect a lot from a bunch of guys who spent their teenage years focused on physical development with no training in history, philosophy theology or whatever they decide to talk about. Being a great athlete should not give you authority on any subject outside of sport, we don't interview great car mechanics about ethics why should we pay heed to a rugby player on the subject. I always felt this was a problem in media in general, experts get minimal air time compared to "celebs" whose opinion on such matters is meaningless. In some sense I feel sorry for him, his ignorance is being exposed due to his false sense of confidence in an area where he is not competent and now maybe sunk cost is forcing him to entrench his position.

Of course we should deride him if we care about not alienating people but also I feel the lesson here is not to take athletes seriously in general on anything not related to sport.

his father is a fundamentalist preacher... and he was brought up in a community that, while on the australian mainland, was actually very similar to what he would have had on the islands..

imagine the life he was brought up in... what he heard every day.

hes a product of his upbringing

errlloyd

joseywhales wrote: »

Isn't there some kind of internet rule where if you mention Hitler or the Nazis your argument is automatically considered false?

I did a lot of international level debating as a speaker and a judge. That actually was a sort of rule. Not fully formal, but as informal as getting docked points for swearing you'd get docked points for nazi comparisons.