Consent classes for Irish rugby team

hatrickpatrick

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The messages they sent to each other showed them up as arseholes. No company will want to associate themselves with arseholes. It just isnt good publicity.

They were private messages. People are and should be free to say anything they like in private to their close friends or family and not have it affect their careers and public lives. This is the fault of a legal system which allows such evidence to be leaked to the public in the absence of a conviction, not the individuals who exchanged those messages. Being an arsehole while not on the job is not something which should affect someone's employment.

Sardonicat

Redneck Culchie wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

Someone, please control these women!

I said feminists not women. As much you would like to confuse the terms, they are not the same thing.

True, some men are feminists too.

Triceratops Ballet

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And the minute they do the Mulally etc crowd are on them. Can't win.

Oh and they may have been "submitted in evidence" but as they were found not guilty, and we operate on "innocent till proven guilty" there was no crime.

I'm sure you'd like there to have been but there was not.

Yeah there was no crime in the eye of the law, that's what I said.

However they, as representatives of the IRFU, acted in a way that is deemed unbecoming of a representative of the IRFU. The IRFU has a right to ask it's employees to act responsibly as a representative of the brand, it's probably something that exists in most employment contracts. They broke the terms of their contract and were punished for it. They would have gotten many perks as reps of the IRFU, all they're asked for in return is to uphold the values of the organisation and put their best foot forward. If they can't do that why shouldn't the IRFU take action?

ohnonotgmail

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

How is being an arsehole somehow morally abhorrent and being a tart is not ?

Did the lady have sponsorship deals?

hatrickpatrick

Sardonicat wrote: »

True, some men are feminists too.

And a lot of women oppose "feminism" which goes beyond asking for equality and asks for wholescale social and cultural engineering.

hatrickpatrick

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Yeah there was no crime in the eye of the law, that's what I said.

However they, as representatives of the IRFU, acted in a way that is deemed unbecoming of a representative of the IRFU. The IRFU has a right to ask it's employees to act responsibly as a representative of the brand, it's probably something that exists in most employment contracts. They broke the terms of their contract and were punished for it. They would have gotten many perks as reps of the IRFU, all they're asked for in return is to uphold the values of the organisation and put their best foot forward. If they can't do that why shouldn't the IRFU take action?

So should no distinction be made between actions taken in public and actions taken in private? In what you post on Twitter and what you text privately to your friends? In what you say in a TV interview and what you say in the pub or at the dinner table at home?

PlaneSpeeking

Sardonicat wrote: »

True, some men are feminists too.

And plenty of women (myself included) would rather choke than be considered a feminist.

ohnonotgmail

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

They were private messages. People are and should be free to say anything they like in private to their close friends or family and not have it affect their careers and public lives. This is the fault of a legal system which allows such evidence to be leaked to the public in the absence of a conviction, not the individuals who exchanged those messages. Being an arsehole while not on the job is not something which should affect someone's employment.

So they were arseholes in private that got found out?

TheChizler

Redneck Culchie wrote: »

Is the irony in that these consent classes have to be mandatory and forced on men not lost on people?

You aren't allowed to refuse consent to take part in consent classes.

All consent classes or just the ones in the OP? Because if you're saying the former then that's certainly untrue.

PlaneSpeeking

Redneck Culchie wrote: »

Most male feminists are predators in disguise. I would not associate with such individuals.

Or people like Justin Trudeau who is so "woke" it's scary.

PlaneSpeeking

TheChizler wrote: »

All consent classes or just the ones in the OP? Because if you're saying the former then that's certainly untrue.

I'd hate to be the male student in my place that refused to go.

Sardonicat

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Sardonicat wrote: »

True, some men are feminists too.

And plenty of women (myself included) would rather choke than be considered a feminist.

That's pretty obvious from your posts. There is no need to extrapolate. It's very clear.

hatrickpatrick

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

So they were arseholes in private that got found out?

Pretty much. In my view, this should 100% never be considered legitimate grounds for someone being disciplined at work. The trend for this kind of thing is part of the ongoing destruction of any barrier between personal and professional lives (much like the expectation that people be "on call" 24/7 to answer work related calls and texts even when clocked off) and is just something which I view as unhealthy and unfair towards everyone involved.

PlaneSpeeking

Sardonicat wrote: »

That's pretty obvious from your posts. There is no need to extrapolate. It's very clear.

You seem to believe that's a bad thing ?

Triceratops Ballet

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So should no distinction be made between actions taken in public and actions taken in private? In what you post on Twitter and what you text privately to your friends? In what you say in a TV interview and what you say in the pub or at the dinner table at home?

There are a lot of upsides to being famous, but one major downside is that you don't really say things in private anymore, when everyone knows who you are someone is always watching so rightly or wrongly you have less privacy than the likes of you or me. That's just how it is.
While they're having the consent classes they could probably do with a bit of training on how to be savvy about their privacy and how to deal with the media etc

PlaneSpeeking

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Pretty much. In my view, this should 100% never be considered legitimate grounds for someone being disciplined at work. The trend for this kind of thing is part of the ongoing destruction of any barrier between personal and professional lives (much like the expectation that people be "on call" 24/7 to answer work related calls and texts even when clocked off) and is just something which I view as unhealthy and unfair towards everyone involved.

I remember the day the verdict came in, I actually had to leave the office for the above I was getting.

My "crime" ? Saying I believed we should respect the handing down of a verdict by a jury of their peers.

But then I've been called a rape apologist for saying I believe Cristiano Ronaldo.

FunLover18

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

FunLover18 wrote: »

They were found NOT GUILTY, meaning that the jury did not believe that the evidence presented by the prosecution was enough to rule out any possible doubt that they were guilty.

It's the same thing. Our society is founded on the principle of innocent until proven guilty. Therefore a not guilty verdict = an innocent individual.

There's a reason it's a "not guilty" verdict and not an "innocent" verdict and it's because that's not what it means. A jury is charged with determining a person's guilt based on the evidence put before them, not their innocence.

ohnonotgmail

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Pretty much. In my view, this should 100% never be considered legitimate grounds for someone being disciplined at work. The trend for this kind of thing is part of the ongoing destruction of any barrier between personal and professional lives (much like the expectation that people be "on call" 24/7 to answer work related calls and texts even when clocked off) and is just something which I view as unhealthy and unfair towards everyone involved.

They do not work a regular 9 to 5 job. Their job involves promotional work. How they behave impacts on that.

Wibbs

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

How is being an arsehole somehow morally abhorrent and being a tart is not ?

How dare you make a moral judgement on one gender and not the other!!

Meh, it always boils down to the underlying credo of "feminism": Women are always agentless victims and men are always to blame.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

I remember the day the verdict came in, I actually had to leave the office for the above I was getting.

My "crime" ? Saying I believed we should respect the handing down of a verdict by a jury of their peers.

But then I've been called a rape apologist for saying I believe Cristiano Ronaldo.

Which bit? When he admits he raped yer one?

riffmongous

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

They do not work a regular 9 to 5 job. Their job involves promotional work. How they behave impacts on that.

Indeed, modern pro sports are as much about the brand and sponsorship as anything else, and the sportsmen get paid accordingly. It's all part of the deal

PlaneSpeeking

Wibbs wrote: »

How dare you make a moral judgement on one gender and not the other!!

Meh, it always boils down to the underlying credo of "feminism": Women are always agentless victims and men are always to blame.

And when you wave the flag of "uterus owner and non feminist" - the backlash begins!

Mental stuff!! I called Serena Williams a few choice names for her pathetic rant at the US Open, and was told "she's defending herself as a mother" - WTF ???? "You don't support women" - not when they're being a brat I don't!!!!

PlaneSpeeking

Deleted User wrote: »

Which bit? When he admits he raped yer one?

Oh ffs.

PlaneSpeeking

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Oh ffs.

Explain.

Ri_Nollaig

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

And plenty of women (myself included) would rather choke than be considered a feminist.

'Feminism' originally meant equally, for both sexes. Something I think the vast majority of men would find hard to disagree with and would want in 2018.

As that has been reached it has now extended to basically 'special treatment' for women and a case of 'lets swing the pendulum back the other direction'. Infact, very ironic considering what 'Feminism' once meant, but an irony that seems to escape the types who are trying to push for consent re-education classes, gender quotes, pay gap etc.

Redneck Culchie wrote: »

Is the irony in that these consent classes have to be mandatory and forced on men not lost on people?

You aren't allowed to refuse consent to take part in consent classes.

Yes! I thought of that too and when this was being forced on collage [male] students.
Irony for all!

But its grand, some head of some quango/ngo that is looking to justify her funding for the coming year just coincidentally released some report that said it was needed.

El_Duderino 09

Paulzx wrote: »

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

...Raised well, I'd consider myself a balanced individual who doesn't force himself upon anyone and knows what boundaries are and what no means.

I would be of the same opinion. I was raised to know the difference between right and wrong. It's an insult to basically be regarded as a potential rapist and to be told you need programming to ensure it doesn't happen.

And would you both consider yourselves to be experts in the law regarding consent?

Do you think the Belfast lads knew they were risking their careers when they were having sex with the wan or sending WhatsApp messages the next day?

I’d bet anything that paddy Jackson wishes he had those discussions beforehand. I would say he’d most likely still be playing with ulster abc Ireland if he had known the risks.

PlaneSpeeking

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

And would you both consider yourselves to be experts in the law regarding consent?

Do you think the Belfast lads knew they were risking their careers when they were having sex with the wan or sending WhatsApp messages the next day?

I’d bet anything that paddy Jackson wishes he had those discussions beforehand. I would say he’d most likely still be playing with ulster abc Ireland if he had known the risks.

Why should an experience of consensual sex lead to one's career being ruined ?

If these classes also involved women and reminded them that enthusiastically consenting the night before and experiencing regret the next day is NOT rape and never will be - that would be a start.

El_Duderino 09

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

Why should an experience of consensual sex lead to one's career being ruined ?

If these classes also involved women and reminded them that enthusiastically consenting the night before and experiencing regret the next day is NOT rape and never will be - that would be a start.

Well as I asked above,
As I said above, “Do you think the Belfast lads knew they were risking their careers when they were having sex with the wan or sending WhatsApp messages the next day?”

Because that’s what happened.

PlaneSpeeking

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well as I asked above,
As I said above, “Do you think the Belfast lads knew they were risking their careers when they were having sex with the wan or sending WhatsApp messages the next day?”

Because that’s what happened.

And I fail to see how a class in something that shouldn't happen, can happen.

They aren't the one's who need education - clearly the f**ked up society that automatically demonises men's sexuality does.

El_Duderino 09

PlaneSpeeking wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Well as I asked above,
As I said above, “Do you think the Belfast lads knew they were risking their careers when they were having sex with the wan or sending WhatsApp messages the next day?”

Because that’s what happened.

And I fail to see how a class in something that shouldn't happen, can happen.

They aren't the one's who need education - clearly the f**ked up society that automatically demonises men's sexuality does.

Phrase it whatever way you like. I bet paddy Jackson didn’t know the risks he was taking and he paid a high price.

Im a rugby fan and hated to see things unfold as they did with Jackson. I’m delighted the IRFU is looking after it’s players.

There’s no need to turn everything into a feminism issue. This is the IRFU protecting its players and its reputation. Makes good sense to me.