Protest Paddy Jackson playing at the weekend?

SJW Lover

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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.

You keep talking about "growing the game". What exactly does that mean in the context of preventing people from playing who have been accused of crimes and subsequently found innocent?



As for the "outlier" comment: that may be the case in your bubble. Anyone i have spoken to about it believes Jackson should be allowed get on with his life. It would be fairly 50-50 on this thread too.

SJW Lover

SJW Lover wrote: »

As for the "outlier" comment: that may be the case in your bubble. Anyone i have spoken to about it believes Jackson should be allowed get on with his life. It would be fairly 50-50 on this thread too.

87% agree with you chief according to the poll.

El_Duderino 09

SJW Lover wrote: »

You keep talking about "growing the game". What exactly does that mean in the context of preventing people from playing who have been accused of crimes and subsequently found innocent?



As for the "outlier" comment: that may be the case in your bubble. Anyone i have spoken to about it believes Jackson should be allowed get on with his life. It would be fairly 50-50 on this thread too.

Lol. I said you’re an outlier for not thinking branding and advertising are important aspects of growing the game in Ireland.

As I said a few times, the IRFU is trying to grow the game in both viewership and player base (including demographics).

The best way to do that is to control the image of their organisation of their sport. Constantly explaining why they employed PJ is miles away from the business of advertising the game and promoting the game the way they want to. Hope this helps you understand.

SJW Lover

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

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”

No it really is that simple. There is a thing called the justice system which deals with crimes and which we all sign up to respect as part of the social contract. Anything else, given the not guilty verdict, is harassment.



I didnt respond to your Polanski retort because it makes no sense. "Chinatown's ability to draw a crowd has changed" - this just shows how far above your head my point has gone. The film remains the same. It is a great film. This remains despite what Polanski may have done. What you're arguing is that Coca Cola can be allowed to decide that Chinatown not be made at all because they have put some money towards the studio making it. It's nonsense.



Michael Jackson's posthumous sales are past the billion dollar mark so not sure what you think you're showing me there except that people still think Thriller etc is good despite what has been alleged against him. Which proves my point.



Your whole point boils down to sponsors should be allowed to tell Ireland who can play and not play based on nasty sounding text messages. If you cannot see how slippery a slope that is then you arent a sports fan at all.

SJW Lover

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Lol. I said you’re an outlier for not thinking branding and advertising are important aspects of growing the game in Ireland.

As I said a few times, the IRFU is trying to grow the game in both viewership and player base (including demographics).

The best way to do that is to control the image of their organisation of their sport. Constantly explaining why they employed PJ is miles away from the business of advertising the game and promoting the game the way they want to. Hope this helps you understand.

"Growing the game" - care to explain what that is which you keep repeating?


87% on here agree with my stance. Looks like you are the outlier. Lol.

SJW Lover

physioman wrote: »

Think they explained it already. Irfu as a brand are trying to make money by increasing their revenue through increased membership and sponsorship. Its pretty obvious really

"...as a brand..." are the operative words there. The IRFU are not a brand. They are a sporting organisation tasked with putting out representative teams, ensuring the provincial and grassroots games is in good nick and take their place within the World governing body. Your statement is only pretty obvious to those who see sport only as a means of making money.

El_Duderino 09

SJW Lover wrote: »

No it really is that simple. There is a thing called the justice system which deals with crimes and which we all sign up to respect as part of the social contract. Anything else, given the not guilty verdict, is harassment.



I didnt respond to your Polanski retort because it makes no sense. "Chinatown's ability to draw a crowd has changed" - this just shows how far above your head my point has gone. The film remains the same. It is a great film. This remains despite what Polanski may have done. What you're arguing is that Coca Cola can be allowed to decide that Chinatown not be made at all because they have put some money towards the studio making it. It's nonsense.



Michael Jackson's posthumous sales are past the billion dollar mark so not sure what you think you're showing me there except that people still think Thriller etc is good despite what has been alleged against him. Which proves my point.



Your whole point boils down to sponsors should be allowed to tell Ireland who can play and not play based on nasty sounding text messages. If you cannot see how slippery a slope that is then you arent a sports fan at all.

I’ll take your word for it that Chinatown is a great movie -haven’t seen it myself. But I think you’ll struggle to find examples of it being shown on tv or reruns in the cinema which is odd for such a great movie. Likewise, Jackson and R Kelly are selling to people who already knew about their product. But their airplay’s are way down so they will struggle to attract new customers.

I’m not sure why you think Hollywood movies don’t already rely on sponsorship from investors. But I didn’t make the straw man point in the post above re Coca Cola.

If you think r Kelly and MJ and Polanski are in a strong position to advertise their product into the future relative to where they would be if they didn’t have all the negative publicity, then your deluding yourself. The product stays the same the ability to advertise it is diminished.

The IRFU didn’t want the hassle. That’s not to say PJ is any less good as a player but the IRFU chose not to employ him because it would have interfered with their other goals of growing the game, branding and advertising their product.

I’m only dealing in the reality of the situation we’re in. I think your purist thinking that you can will things into existence is admirable to an extent. But you can’t wish away the negative publicity that the IRFU would have been dealing with since the trial had they chosen to employ him.

El_Duderino 09

SJW Lover wrote: »

"Growing the game" - care to explain what that is which you keep repeating?


87% on here agree with my stance. Looks like you are the outlier. Lol.

“Lol. I said you’re an outlier for not thinking branding and advertising are important aspects of growing the game in Ireland”

El_Duderino 09

SJW Lover wrote: »

"...as a brand..." are the operative words there. The IRFU are not a brand. They are a sporting organisation tasked with putting out representative teams, ensuring the provincial and grassroots games is in good nick and take their place within the World governing body. Your statement is only pretty obvious to those who see sport only as a means of making money.

The statement is obvious to those who deal with reality on reality’s terms.

Of course then IRFU is a brand. The reality is that sport, business and entertainment are mixed at the level of international rugby. That reality seems to have evaded you thus far which explains your unusual outlook on the IRFU.

alastair

Sinbad_NI wrote: »

Not guilty in court.
Her friends testimony said it all for me tbh.

She wasn’t friends with anyone in that house. The testimony was from a stranger - they didn’t know each other. Worth noting that the same testimony from Dara Florence was that Jackson was having penetrative sex with the woman - and that Jackson’s defense was that he never did. So how does that factor into your faith in that testimony?

El_Duderino 09

alastair wrote: »

She wasn’t friends with anyone in that house. The testimony was from a stranger - they didn’t know each other. Worth noting that the same testimony from Dara Florence was that Jackson was having penetrative sex with the woman - and that Jackson’s defense was that he never did. So how does that factor into your faith in that testimony?

It tells me that even the people who were tyre don’t agree on what happened. And I have absolutely no way to know what happened. I could pick a side and pretend I know what happened. But I don't because I care about what’s true and in this instance I don’t know enough to know what’s true.

alastair

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

It tells me that even the people who were tyre don’t agree on what happened. And I have absolutely no way to know what happened. I could pick a side and pretend I know what happened. But I don't because I care about what’s true and in this instance I don’t know enough to know what’s true.

Not a question posed to you, but thanks for your thoughts.

GS11

alastair wrote: »

She wasn’t friends with anyone in that house. The testimony was from a stranger - they didn’t know each other. Worth noting that the same testimony from Dara Florence was that Jackson was having penetrative sex with the woman - and that Jackson’s defense was that he never did. So how does that factor into your faith in that testimony?

A lot of differences in the stories, but have you ever heard guys ask someone else to come and join them, if they were raping someone.

Bad **** happened, people do stuff when they are drunk that they aren't proud of or that they regret.

**** like this is happening over the country every weekend.

El_Duderino 09

GS11 wrote: »

A lot of differences in the stories, but have you ever heard guys ask someone else to come and join them, if they were raping someone.

Bad **** happened, people do stuff when they are drunk that they aren't proud of or that they regret.

**** like this is happening over the country every weekend.

This whole case is a massive advertisement for discussing the nature of consent. What it is, what it isn’t and how to chat about it so you don’t do things you’ll regret or you won’t hurt anyone without meaning to.

Squiggle

Genuinely surprised Jackson got a contract in the Northern hemisphere. Can't for the life of me think what brand would want to be associated with him, given his attitude to women. Diageo seems to agree with me.

FWIW I would have acquitted PJ had I been on the jury because of the " beyond reasonable doubt" condition. Better to acquit a guilty person than convict an innocent person IMO.

If your proclivity is to protest than surely boycotting the sponsors of London Irish is the way to go about it ?

El_Duderino 09

Squiggle wrote: »

Genuinely surprised Jackson got a contract in the Northern hemisphere. Can't for the life of me think what brand would want to be associated with him, given his attitude to women. Diageo seems to agree with me.

FWIW I would have acquitted PJ had I been on the jury because of the " beyond reasonable doubt" condition. Better to acquit a guilty person than convict an innocent person IMO.

If your proclivity is to protest than surely boycotting the sponsors of London Irish is the way to go about it ?

He got work in France for the last couple of years. Maybe a bit of “hairy ape” is a plus point in negotiating a contract in France - Joke based on unfair stereotypes.

spurious

GS11 wrote: »

A lot of differences in the stories, but have you ever heard guys ask someone else to come and join them, if they were raping someone.

Bad **** happened, people do stuff when they are drunk that they aren't proud of or that they regret.

**** like this is happening over the country every weekend.

I believe part of the issue was they didn't believe they were raping anyone.
Their comments in the chat group after showed quite a lack of awareness generally.

He seems like a right toad and I wouldn't want him near any women in my family or as a role model for any of the men, but I don't think protesting about him outside a game will change anything, particularly his opinion as to what happened that night. Early on the Stuart lad made some noises towards recognising the woman's experience of the event may not have been the same as theirs, but the bould Paddy didn't.

I agree with you that similar happens regularly all over the country. It's part of what gives the ongoing protests legs I think.

Lux23

I can't even remember the names of the other guys, but that is because they didn't act like utter pricks after the verdict. Paddy Jackson and his lawyer behaved appallingly after the trial ended, his 'apology' came days after the others. Feck him, I wouldn't attend one of these protests, but I have no sympathy for him either.

riffmongous

alastair wrote: »

She wasn’t friends with anyone in that house. The testimony was from a stranger - they didn’t know each other. Worth noting that the same testimony from Dara Florence was that Jackson was having penetrative sex with the woman - and that Jackson’s defense was that he never did. So how does that factor into your faith in that testimony?

I was always surprised this was never brought up more, there is a lot of discrepancy in the accounts. And it really highlights the difference between not guilty and innocent in this case

El_Duderino 09

Lux23 wrote: »

I can't even remember the names of the other guys, but that is because they didn't act like utter pricks after the verdict. Paddy Jackson and his lawyer behaved appallingly after the trial ended, his 'apology' came days after the others. Feck him, I wouldn't attend one of these protests, but I have no sympathy for him either.

Stewart Olding made a statement afterward to the effect that he didn’t agree with the woman’s opinion that she was raped but he didn’t discount the fact that she thought she was raped. He said he didn’t think she lied but she was wrong which means she doesn’t deserve a load of guff about being a liar.

I thought it was a fair statement and acknowledged that there can be differences of how people experience the same event without anyone being a liar - the kind of subtlety that went out the window when people who weren’t there pretended they knew what happened based on their prejudices.

One angle that was never explored because there were more serious concern at the time, was how the lads felt. They genuinely hurt the woman. That must have been a horrible experience for them (unless they’re nasty people who wouldn’t care). I’ll bet they would much prefer to have chatted with her about having a threesome and either did it with everyone consenting or not doing it because not everyone consented.

I’ll bet Jackson would support discussing consent beforehand

Huntergonzo

Paddy Jackson wasn't found guilty of rape, so basically people are protesting against a rugby club for hiring a non-rapist

Welcome to the 21st century folks.

Fan of Netflix

Huntergonzo wrote: »

Paddy Jackson wasn't found guilty of rape, so basically people are protesting against a rugby club for hiring a non-rapist

Welcome to the 21st century folks.

That is feminists in Ireland for you. Dangerous hysterical nutters.

mfceiling

alastair wrote: »

Is OJ innocent? Is that a fact?

There's no doubt that Jackson was found not guilty, but it's for people to make up their own minds if he's actually innocent.

?

osarusan

If the private messages had been leaked somehow without any accompanying trial, there would still have been a media sh!tstorm anyway.

IRFU carefully protect the 'clean and wholesome sport' brand they've built over the last 20 years or so.

Huntergonzo

Fan of Netflix wrote: »

That is feminists in Ireland for you. Dangerous hysterical nutters.

They're vermin, they don't even hide their warped agenda.

One of the protestors was on the radio this morning and said that she accpeted the court's decision but of course went on to complain about the low level of conviction in rape cases in Ireland. And threw in the fanatical left's favourite campaign catchprase 'rape culture'.

But see that's the thing, feminists aren't interested in fair trials or justice, all you ever hear them talk about is convictions. So what if an innocent person (well man really of course) is destroyed and goes to jail, we need more convictions!!

Ps, how many women did you rape today? I aim for at least 12 a day myself, gotta keep this rape culture alive and well!

Shefwedfan

osarusan wrote: »

If the private messages had been leaked somehow without any accompanying trial, there would still have been a media sh!tstorm anyway.

IRFU carefully protect the 'clean and wholesome sport' brand they've built over the last 20 years or so.

You could look at the other way


If the text messages hadn't of been used and plastered all over the press would people still have the same reaction to a rugby playing getting charged but been cleared of all charges????

osarusan

Shefwedfan wrote: »

You could look at the other way


If the text messages hadn't of been used and plastered all over the press would people still have the same reaction to a rugby playing getting charged but been cleared of all charges????

For sure, the messages influenced a lot of the public sentiment, even if they weren't really all that relevant legally.


I'm just pointing out that it wasn't just about a rape trial and acquittal, those messages would have had influence on public sentiment, and IRFU response, even without one.

KrustyUCC

The person organising the protest Linda Hayden is running for the Social Democrats next election

She also tried to get Paddy Whiskey to remove their sponsorship from London Irish

El_Duderino 09

osarusan wrote: »

IRFU carefully protect the 'clean and wholesome sport' brand they've built over the last 20 years or so.

Of course they do. As is their right

Huntergonzo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Of course they do. As is their right

Absolutely and protesting a non-rapist is very distasteful and sets a bad example to children, the IRFU should take a very strong stance against people who protest other people for not being rapists.