Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Protest Paddy Jackson playing at the weekend?
Options
Comments
-
Will be going if he is playing. Scumbag. All the evidence showed they where guilty got away with it cause rape isnt a big deal in Ireland.0
-
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Some people are more private than others. You or I can say what we like in private and if it gets out, nothing will change. PJ is different and things did change when his private messages emerged.
The discussion about what is and isn’t rape came on leaps and bounds around the Belfast trial and the messages. Lots of people changed their opinion from “its simple, don’t rape anyone” to acknowledging that consent is actually a tricky subject and is worth discussing.
The IRFU were within their rights to protect themselves by not continuing to employ him because THEY were now associated with HIS private messages.
Anyway, he was acquitted and the public interest dust has settled as far as I’m concerned. So I wouldn’t protest him or London Irish
I just don't agree, but it's only my opinion. Private communications should be sacrosanct and the IRFU should have taken a stand on principle, come what may. Trial by social media is not acceptable and it should not be normalised - not guilty means not guilty.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »The most likely outcome is she believed she was raped and the defendants believe they did not commit rape. That's consistent with all of their accounts. This is entirely possible after copious amounts of drugs and alcohol consumed by all parties. Nobody is lying in that scenario.
As someone who's come down from a trip right in the middle of fooling around with someone and having absolutely no recollection of how I ended up in her bed, many years ago, I firmly believe that this is what happened as well. In my case, we were both close already, came to our senses at the same time and ended up laughing about it after calming down from the initial shock, but circumstances such as these involving mind altering substances can go very, very wrong. I've always maintained that all parties were probably telling the truth to the best of their ability in this case - they were off their faces, they (together) chose to do what they did, and then either in the middle of the act or afterwards, she had a moment of clarity and was like "WTF, how did I end up in this position and what's even going on in here".
I have experienced that exact feeling when drugs, alcohol and sex mix. It's a horrible experience, even if you actually like the person you find yourself in the middle of things with when you come to your senses - the very feeling that you don't remember how you ended up in that situation can be terrifying. In my case it was more that I knew she was supposed to be seeing someone else so I assumed I had initiated it and there'd be hell to pay, but luckily someone else had filmed her straddling me earlier in the night so I was off the hook as far as initiating infidelity went. But neither of us even remembered that early part of it, let alone what happened subsequently.
That's the main reason I genuinely feel sorry for the complainant, unlike those who accuse her of intentionally lying. Obviously I'm biased as this has happened to me in the past, but I know plenty of other people it's happened to as well. When you black out from drugs or alcohol (and especially when it's a mixture of both), your brain can fill the blank period with dark, dark thoughts, and if sex is involved, that leads to aftermaths which are awkward at best and traumatic at worst. It's an unfortunate situation and it's had horrific consequences for all involved but I honestly don't think anyone set out to screw anyone else over, it sounds like a genuine case of blacking out and jumping to conclusions after sobering up.0 -
Shefwedfan wrote: »Lads always think their watsapp group are terrible....have a look at an all female group and they are 10 times worse
Single gender whatsapp groups have nothing on mixed gender whatsapp groups, assuming everyone in them are mates and not dry sh!tes. Obscene ramblings flow thick and fast.0 -
Another issue that should be noted and which i find concerning is sponsors' increasing ability or say in deciding who gets to play. I, and everyone else, am there to watch the sport and sponsors etc jump on the back of that sport's popularity to promote their brand. Not the other way round. I don't care if the players on the pitch are awful people. What gets them on the pitch is how good they are at their particular sport and not how nice a person they are. Recent developments where sponsors get to choose who gets to "represent their brand" is absolutely ridiculous and should be opposed at every opportunity.0
-
Advertisement
-
Screw Attack wrote: »You're wrong. Gender is a spectrum.
Spectrums generally dont have 2 data points.0 -
Another issue that should be noted and which i find concerning is sponsors' increasing ability or say in deciding who gets to play. I, and everyone else, am there to watch the sport and sponsors etc jump on the back of that sport's popularity to promote their brand. Not the other way round. I don't care if the players on the pitch are awful people. What gets them on the pitch is how good they are at their particular sport and not how nice a person they are. Recent developments where sponsors get to choose who gets to "represent their brand" is absolutely ridiculous and should be opposed at every opportunity.
He who pays the piper calls the tune.0 -
Another issue that should be noted and which i find concerning is sponsors' increasing ability or say in deciding who gets to play. I, and everyone else, am there to watch the sport and sponsors etc jump on the back of that sport's popularity to promote their brand. Not the other way round. I don't care if the players on the pitch are awful people. What gets them on the pitch is how good they are at their particular sport and not how nice a person they are. Recent developments where sponsors get to choose who gets to "represent their brand" is absolutely ridiculous and should be opposed at every opportunity.
women are responsible for 80% of consumer spending, with tobacco gone, alcohol being removed and gambling next on the "big spend sponsors" chopping block, many organisations have focussed their strategy going forward on appealing to women and aligning their corporate values with sponsors who market a lot to women. Its the same reason the internet is very 'anti men' everyones just trying to protect revenue streams, couldn't give a toss about women or what they think as long as the wallet is open.0 -
hatrickpatrick wrote: »I just don't agree, but it's only my opinion. Private communications should be sacrosanct and the IRFU should have taken a stand on principle, come what may. Trial by social media is not acceptable and it should not be normalised - not guilty means not guilty.
It’s really not the IRFU’s job to get involved in taking stands on what people think of private WhatsApp messages. It’s their job to go with the flow and currently, that means he can’t continue to work for them because he’s famous.
It wouldn’t matter much if it happened to you or I because we’re not famous.
I don’t blame them for terminating his contract. They didn’t want to do it. He was very import to ulster (they chose not to renew ruan pienaar‘a contract to train jackson to run the game from our half) and was Ireland’s no.2 in his position.
But it’s really not their job to make a stand on things like that.0 -
Left out of the squad anyway, so he wont be playing in Munster.0
-
Advertisement
-
He who pays the piper calls the tune.
I know what you are saying but i disagree. Sponsors are paying for the privilege of having eyes on their brand while the sporting event is taking place. The only reason they are doing so is becuase people want to watch the sport. Diluting the sport so as to comply with political correctness is putting the cart before the horse and needs to be reigned in. If you wont bank with Bank of Ireland or drink Guinness because those entities sponsor a team that has individuals on it that you do not like, then you arent a fan of that sport and should have zero say in it.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »It’s really not the IRFU’s job to get involved in taking stands on what people think of private WhatsApp messages. It’s their job to go with the flow and currently, that means he can’t continue to work for them because he’s famous.
It wouldn’t matter much if it happened to you or I because we’re not famous.
I don’t blame them for terminating his contract. They didn’t want to do it. He was very import to ulster (they chose not to renew ruan pienaar‘a contract to train jackson to run the game from our half) and was Ireland’s no.2 in his position.
But it’s really not their job to make a stand on things like that.
It's not their job to "go with the flow". It's their job to ensure rugby in Ireland is facilitated and promoted and, in the case of the international teams, their job is to make sure the best team is on the pitch and given all the support they need to win. The best players, provided they are not convicted and found guilty of serious criminal offences, should play. Paddy Jackson was found not guilty and therefore should play.
If Ireland suffer an out-half injury crisis at this World Cup (which is not beyond the realms of possibility) then we will have a perfectly good out-half sitting at home while fully fit who is not allowed to play because sponsors and some don't like sentiments expressed in a private encrypted Whatsapp message group. It's absolutely ridiculous.0 -
It's not their job to "go with the flow". It's their job to ensure rugby in Ireland is facilitated and promoted and, in the case of the international teams, their job is to make sure the best team is on the pitch and given all the support they need to win. The best players, provided they are not convicted and found guilty of serious criminal offences, should play. Paddy Jackson was found not guilty and therefore should play.
If Ireland suffer an out-half injury crisis at this World Cup (which is not beyond the realms of possibility) then we will have a perfectly good out-half sitting at home while fully fit who is not allowed to play because sponsors and some don't like sentiments expressed in a private encrypted Whatsapp message group. It's absolutely ridiculous.
There’s more to it than that. What if their goal to promote and grow and promote the game is in conflict with its goal to have the best players on the pitch? They chose to drop PJ and avoid the negative impact employing him would have on the goal of growing the promoting the game.
I’m sure the IRFU has considered the problem and decide what fits best with their goals. If it doesn’t fit with your goals, that’s not their problem.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »There’s more to it than that. What if their goal to promote and grow and promote the game is in conflict with its goal to have the best players on the pitch? They chose to drop PJ and avoid the negative impact employing him would have on the goal of growing the promoting the game.
I’m sure the IRFU has considered the problem and decide what fits best with their goals. If it doesn’t fit with your goals, that’s not their problem.
I don't see the conflict here. He was found not guilty, ergo he didn't commit the offence. There is no justification for his treatment since that verdict. Players are picked for their skills on the pitch and how many old ladies they help across the street or houses they might build in Malawi is absolutely irrelevant.0 -
Eric Cartman wrote: »can you imagine if a group of men kept protesting a woman who actually was a predator like lena dunham (after she admitted in her own book to molesting her underage sister) and the outrage it would cause.
Also why is it when athletes and other big names end up accused of sex crimes that its almost exclusively women that wouldnt even be on the radar for those types of men to even attempt to have consensual sex with that shout the loudest about it.
I didn’t know much about this so looked it up. I was surprised to read that Dunham was seven when it happened and her sister a baby. I assumed she was way older the way people talk about it. Seven seems really young to have a ‘predator’ tag attached to you, doesn’t it? You say her sister was underage but they were both really, really underage.
On the OP question, no there shouldn’t be protests. The guy needs to work.0 -
I don't see the conflict here. He was found not guilty, ergo he didn't commit the offence. There is no justification for his treatment since that verdict. Players are picked for their skills on the pitch and how many old ladies they help across the street or houses they might build in Malawi is absolutely irrelevant.
Ah, ok if you don’t see the conflict m, that explains your position.
The conflict between growing and promoting the game and having the best players on the pitch is that having PJ on the pitch would come with the protests and negative publicity. That negative publicity runs contrary to growing and promoting the game. The IRFU made its decision to not employ PJ do it could have the best chance of growing and promoting the sport. Hope that explains it.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Ah, ok if you don’t see the conflict m, that explains your position.
The conflict between growing and promoting the game and having the best players on the pitch is that having PJ on the pitch would come with the protests and negative publicity. That negative publicity runs contrary to growing and promoting the game. The IRFU made its decision to not employ PJ do it could have the best chance of growing and promoting the sport. Hope that explains it.
How would a few eejits protesting affect the gloriously vague concept that is "growing and promoting the game"?0 -
How would a few eejits protesting affect the gloriously vague concept that is "growing and promoting the game"?
Just a quick reminder that you brought up the “gloriously vague” concept of growing and promoting game. I didn’t think you held it in such contempt when you brought it up as part of your argument.
But you asked the question so I’ll answer. The answer is simply that the growth and promotion of the game is heavily dependent on public perception. The public won’t go into massively detailed chats or even chats on boards.ie. Most people will only hear the PJ headlines and draw their own conclusions on the fact they the IRFU chose to continue to employ him.
Secondly the fact that there are protests and negative publicity means they will have to deviate from their agenda to constantly answer persistent questions and explain why they chose to employ him. And as they say “if you’re explaining, you’re losing”. So they chose to not employ PJ and get on with their own agenda of growing and promoting the game.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Just a quick reminder that you brought up the “gloriously vague” concept of growing and promoting game. I didn’t think you held it in such contempt when you brought it up as part of your argument.
But you asked the question so I’ll answer. The answer is simply that the growth and promotion of the game is heavily dependent on public perception. The public won’t go into massively detailed chats or even chats on boards.ie. Most people will only hear the PJ headlines and draw their own conclusions on the fact they the IRFU chose to continue to employ him.
Secondly the fact that there are protests and negative publicity means they will have to deviate from their agenda to constantly answer persistent questions and explain why they chose to employ him. And as they say “if you’re explaining, you’re losing”. So they chose to not employ PJ and get on with their own agenda of growing and promoting the game.
I know what i called it. I don't hold it in contempt at all. I hold your subjective impression of what it means in contempt however. And the above is fluff with no real meaning. Public perception? Now there's something that can be measured.
The growth of rugby is entirely dependant on the value of the competition and the play on the field. Invent your own sport tomorrow and you will find that its popularity and whether same sport grows at all is entirely dependant on how much enjoyment can be derived from playing it and how enjoyable it is to watch to those who are not playing it. That is it. Nothing more. Taking the best players off the field for spurious, subjective reasons is detrimental to the growth of the game. Taking players off the field because sponsors don't agree with the player's lifestyle vis-a-vis their brand image is absolutely detrimental to the growth of the game. The sponsors have zero interest in the growth of the sport. They are only interested in their brand and making money. Paddy Jackson has been removed because Ireland's corporate sponsors have decided him on the field hurts their brand. Agreeing with this stance is nothing to do with helping the growth of the sport and, if you believe that, you've been conned.0 -
I know what i called it. I don't hold it in contempt at all. I hold your subjective impression of what it means in contempt however. And the above is fluff with no real meaning. Public perception? Now there's something that can be measured.
The growth of rugby is entirely dependant on the value of the competition and the play on the field. Invent your own sport tomorrow and you will find that its popularity and whether same sport grows at all is entirely dependant on how much enjoyment can be derived from playing it and how enjoyable it is to watch to those who are not playing it. That is it. Nothing more. Taking the best players off the field for spurious, subjective reasons is detrimental to the growth of the game. Taking players off the field because sponsors don't agree with the player's lifestyle vis-a-vis their brand image is absolutely detrimental to the growth of the game. The sponsors have zero interest in the growth of the sport. They are only interested in their brand and making money. Paddy Jackson has been removed because Ireland's corporate sponsors have decided him on the field hurts their brand. Agreeing with this stance is nothing to do with helping the growth of the sport and, if you believe that, you've been conned.
That's how the world of Sponsorship works. Brands are buying positive association, ethics and values.
A poor Sponsorship or a Sponsorship where a Brand has to defend or explain the Sponsorship is a failure and heads will roll.
Paddy Jackson displayed very negative ethics, values and morals by his own behaviour and is not a sellable brand.
he is an employee bringing the employer into disrepute for want of a better term.
When signing up to be a professional in any field, you are responsible for your own Brand and how you are perceived. Brand Paddy Jackson is unfortunately toxic and that is down to the individual and that individual only.
Irrespective of whether people here think the text messages were harmless, there is a big wider world out there (not sure where the idea of either that marketing or Sponsorships are geared solely at women??) who would have very different views of what is acceptable behaviour for someone in the public eye and a role model for children.
I get what you are saying about the Sport, the Sponsors have zero interest and would drop a Sport if a better one came along, that's just Commercially driven decisions, which is the Sponsors job. It is the Sports peoples roles to keep their employers and the Sponsors happy and get their paycheck. Keep your nose clean is a given and he failed that and let himself down.0 -
Advertisement
-
I know what i called it. I don't hold it in contempt at all. I hold your subjective impression of what it means in contempt however. And the above is fluff with no real meaning. Public perception? Now there's something that can be measured.
The growth of rugby is entirely dependant on the value of the competition and the play on the field. Invent your own sport tomorrow and you will find that its popularity and whether same sport grows at all is entirely dependant on how much enjoyment can be derived from playing it and how enjoyable it is to watch to those who are not playing it. That is it. Nothing more. Taking the best players off the field for spurious, subjective reasons is detrimental to the growth of the game. Taking players off the field because sponsors don't agree with the player's lifestyle vis-a-vis their brand image is absolutely detrimental to the growth of the game. The sponsors have zero interest in the growth of the sport. They are only interested in their brand and making money. Paddy Jackson has been removed because Ireland's corporate sponsors have decided him on the field hurts their brand. Agreeing with this stance is nothing to do with helping the growth of the sport and, if you believe that, you've been conned.
That’s a very naive view of the IRFU’s attempts to grow the sport. It doesn’t just come down to the on field action (which can be measured in similar ways to perception of the sport). Small children don’t understand the intricacies of the game on the pitch. It takes parental “buy in” to agree to bring the children to a sport. A lot of that is down to public perception and image. That’s how advertising works. You create and image to advertise and try to sell it to potential customers. It’s the same with any product whether it’s a sport or anything else.
Are you going to persist in the notion that’s there is no value to positive public perception and image when it comes to growing the game and that it’s all down to enjoyment watching and playing?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »That’s a very naive view of the IRFU’s attempts to grow the sport. It doesn’t just come down to the on field action (which can be measured in similar ways to perception of the sport). Small children don’t understand the intricacies of the game on the pitch. It takes parental “buy in” to agree to bring the children to a sport. A lot of that is down to public perception and image. That’s how advertising works. You create and image to advertise and try to sell it to potential customers. It’s the same with any product whether it’s a sport or anything else.
Are you going to persist in the notion that’s there is no value to positive public perception and image when it comes to growing the game and that it’s all down to enjoyment watching and playing?
No, what is naive is you blithely falling in line with corporate interests without second thought. “They need to grow the game” - all just corporate-speak which glosses over the true purpose of sponsorship - making money and increasing brand visibility to make more money. Would people stop liking rugby tomorrow if a man they perceive as not nice was on the field? No, they wouldn’t. Your “public perception” argument is rubbish. You’ve been conned. Is Chinatown no longer a brilliant film because Roman Polanski turned out to be a bad person? No, it actually is getting better with age. An innocent man is not going to a rugby World Cup that he could be brilliant at because the likes of yourself don’t like his opinions on girls. Really?0 -
That's how the world of Sponsorship works. Brands are buying positive association, ethics and values.
A poor Sponsorship or a Sponsorship where a Brand has to defend or explain the Sponsorship is a failure and heads will roll.
Paddy Jackson displayed very negative ethics, values and morals by his own behaviour and is not a sellable brand.
he is an employee bringing the employer into disrepute for want of a better term.
When signing up to be a professional in any field, you are responsible for your own Brand and how you are perceived. Brand Paddy Jackson is unfortunately toxic and that is down to the individual and that individual only.
Irrespective of whether people here think the text messages were harmless, there is a big wider world out there (not sure where the idea of either that marketing or Sponsorships are geared solely at women??) who would have very different views of what is acceptable behaviour for someone in the public eye and a role model for children.
I get what you are saying about the Sport, the Sponsors have zero interest and would drop a Sport if a better one came along, that's just Commercially driven decisions, which is the Sponsors job. It is the Sports peoples roles to keep their employers and the Sponsors happy and get their paycheck. Keep your nose clean is a given and he failed that and let himself down.
I understand what sponsorship is and how it works, thanks. We should appreciate sport right now as it looks like only guy/girls with exemplary personal records should be allowed compete for sporting titles in future. They should submit a cv outlining charitable works before any trials can be attended. Sounds great.0 -
No, what is naive is you blithely falling in line with corporate interests without second thought. “They need to grow the game” - all just corporate-speak which glosses over the true purpose of sponsorship - making money and increasing brand visibility to make more money. Would people stop liking rugby tomorrow if a man they perceive as not nice was on the field? No, they wouldn’t. Your “public perception” argument is rubbish. You’ve been conned. Is Chinatown no longer a brilliant film because Roman Polanski turned out to be a bad person? No, it actually is getting better with age. An innocent man is not going to a rugby World Cup that he could be brilliant at because the likes of yourself don’t like his opinions on girls. Really?
Ah here you’re arguing against the whole idea of advertising and branding.
But your Polanski analogy is apt and I think it makes my point nicely. The movie didn’t become less good, but it’s ability to draw a crowd has changed. Likewise R Kelly and Michael Jackson have greater difficulty selling their products in recent times. Their product hasn’t changed at all though so you’re right on that point.
I don’t know if you follow rugby at all but they actually are trying to grow the game in Ireland. Rugby union in Ireland has a very narrow player demographic base and it would be great for Irish rugby to broaden it.0 -
I understand what sponsorship is and how it works, thanks. We should appreciate sport right now as it looks like only guy/girls with exemplary personal records should be allowed compete for sporting titles in future. They should submit a cv outlining charitable works before any trials can be attended. Sounds great.
Not exemplary personal records. But the publicity with a rape trial is a bad start wouldn’t you say?0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Not exemplary personal records. But the publicity with a rape trial is a bad start wouldn’t you say?
He was found not guilty. That's all there really is to it.0 -
El_Duderino 09 wrote: »Ah here you’re arguing against the whole idea of advertising and branding.
I'm arguing against the new trend in sponsorship and branding where sponsors think they should have any influence on picking the team they sponsor. Which new trend is ably assisted by people like yourself who think it is grand.0 -
I'm arguing against the new trend in sponsorship and branding where sponsors think they should have any influence on picking the team they sponsor. Which new trend is ably assisted by people like yourself who think it is grand.
The sport is more dependant on sponsorship. That’s the reality.
But you are also arguing against the whole notion of branding and advertising if you think that brand image is irrelevant to growing the game and the player base. You’re a bit of an outlier in that belief.0 -
He was found not guilty. That's all there really is to it.
Is it? So there isn’t any protest against Jackson? No revenue shortfall from Guinness deciding not to sponsor London Irish? That’s great news!
Reality is more complicated than your one liner above. And this is 2 years removed from the whole incident.
Would you comment on the response which I posted above?
“But your Polanski analogy is apt and I think it makes my point nicely. The movie didn’t become less good, but it’s ability to draw a crowd has changed. Likewise R Kelly and Michael Jackson have greater difficulty selling their products in recent times. Their product hasn’t changed at all though so you’re right on that point”0 -
Advertisement
-
Not guilty in court.
Her friends testimony said it all for me tbh.
PJ was guilty of being in a dodgy message group. Most of us are probably in that boat.0
Advertisement