Jackson & Olding

[SerjeantWildgoose]

I stand corrected.

They are twats and bonkers.

[BBD]

Pious,Twats, & Bonkers

Solicitors to the Glitterati

[Numbers]

I see that the Bank of Ireland have raised concerns over their sponsorship of Ulster.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43739327

[kk67]

Pious,Twats, & Bonkers

Solicitors to the Glitterati

'...I'll come in again.
FOUR,.. four reasons why.. '

[BBD]

IRFU to make an announcement tomorrow

Not looking good for their futures
The sponsors have applied pressure
Seems that money talks

[kk67]

I liked Olding.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

The review was concluded and the players told of its conclusions on Wednesday. Bank of Ireland's statement and those of other sponsors were issued the same day. Much as with the trial, I think it is difficult to judge to what extent the public statements affected or reflected the outcome of the review, but I think that it is not only wholly appropriate, but absolutely necessary that the IRFU take the views of their sponsors under consideration. Professional rugby, the IRFU and its branches are businesses and the review had to look to their business interests; of course money talks, Dom.

The determination of the review is, I believe, the right one. These men have, by their own admissions in and out of court, behaved in a manner that falls well below the moral standard expected of any member of our society. It has been argued that their actions have only come to light because of their criminal trial and that their criminal trial was held under the glare of publicity; but so too are the privileged careers of professional sportsmen. The sport, which relies on the support of its fans and its commercial sponsors, is justified in requiring those who play and represent it to behave at the very least to the standards of the society they represent. I can't see how any howling or hair pulling over the determination of the review can be justified without first detaching from these men any moral responsibility for their actions on the night in question and, just as damningly, in the days that followed.

No one has denied Jackson and Olding the right to earn a living; they have just been denied the privilege of continuing to earn a living in Ireland in a sport that they have brought into disrepute. I think that they are both now so toxic as to be dangerous signings, but equally I have no doubt that the less morally-robust and deep-pocketed owners of some English or French club will already have dangled contracts in front of them.

I for one, would not want to see either of these men trot out onto a pitch in Ireland to represent any club any time soon, but if that bitterly distasteful circumstance were ever to come about, I would hope that they would meet the iciest of receptions. They have let us all down and their undoubted and abundant talents do not mitigate that one iota.

[kk67]

Good stuff, Sarge'. I love this site.

[kk67]

I understand the Froggies are going to benefit from this and buy up some cheap creatives.

[Banquo]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-43766959

[Digby]

Sadness and regret about sums it up

[hugh_woatmeigh]

Complete overkill.

While I completely acknowledge that Jackson and Olding behaved in a manner that is not befitting a pro - Ulster should be ashamed. It's not as if these guys were mercs. They have devoted their entire professional careers to Ulster. This is atrocious treatment by a club that supposedly calls itself a family.

No attempt at rehabilitating the pair. No attempt at sticking by their "family" despite a single charge failing to stick.

I very much look forward to the demise of Ulster rugby now.

If this is predomiantely an IRFU decision then it's even worse. They didn't seem to have much of an issue green lighting the Munster signing of Grobler. A clear-cut, proven performance-enhancing drug cheat. Interesting that he is being given a second chance - by a union that have no obligation to support him either. Hypocrisy of the highest order.

What a complete car crash that has been exacerbated by a moronic general public baying for blood (for what?) and incompetent blazers at Ulster and the IRFU.

[hugh_woatmeigh]

No one has denied Jackson and Olding the right to earn a living; they have just been denied the privilege of continuing to earn a living in Ireland in a sport that they have brought into disrepute. I think that they are both now so toxic as to be dangerous signings, but equally I have no doubt that the less morally-robust and deep-pocketed owners of some English or French club will already have dangled contracts in front of them.

Bullshit.

Munster sign drug cheats.

The IRFU and their provinces are not of sound moral values. This decision was made to save face - not because it was the right thing to do. They are hypocrites and I suspect you know this.

[Eugene Wrayburn]

Surprised to see them sacked, though it's ominous when the sponsors get involved and in defence of my prediction I wasn't aware of some of the stuff that's come out recently.

[BBD]

Im fairly consistent (I think) that I think any punishment should fit the crime, it should be sufficiently severe to communicate the need for change and sufficiently lenient to allow the opportunity for that change to happen. I was always taught that the art of a good bollocking is to make the person go away thinking, damn Ive been a fool, Ive let myself down there NOT that manager/authority is a bastard and resenting the way they have been treated. Its hard to do but balance is achievable.

I dont think that was done this time. There is a lot of division over this, public flame wars have served to polarise opinions and a lot of good messages about changes that are beneficial are being lost.
- Improvements to the way alleged rape victims are treated by the Gards/Police
- The way the PPS present cases for trial
- The protection of anonymity for both alleged victim and accused
- The way the media report cases,
- The way players conduct themselves on the pitch and off it
- The way social media is used to react to verdicts

These are all aspects that have come under the microscope amongst others and would be worth examining to see how they could be improved given the low reporting rate of rape cases and the poor conviction rate of cases that go to court. I think those things should be addressed by a wide spectrum of different bodies. Each has a part to play, because fixing one bit won't do it on its own.


Im only seeing evidence that this was done to sweep it away from the IRFUs doorstep because the sponsors got twitchy. Not without reason, what they did was an appalling way to treat that girl. But they were found Not Guilty and therefore presumed innocent of a rape. The text exchanges in their WhatsApp group were a private conversation and have only come to the publics attention due to the criminal case and the media scrum.

The IRFU are now using what happened in someones own home between consenting adults and a private conversation within a limited group to sack someone. (In PJ's case a single 10 word text) I think thats a dangerous precedent to set. Thats a very low bar. Put it this way, examine the contents of your own messages on this forum on occasion and are you squeaky clean? I know Im not and if it ever gets out that Im really Keith Wood my career as a pundit sat next to Sonia is over!

I do find it somewhat ironic that we should be taking our lessons in values from the Bank of Ireland now. But thats a whole can of worms.

The thing about values is they are only truly values if you live by them, otherwise they are at best high sounding platitudes and at worst a load of crap you use to present yourself in a favourable way but when tested you don't pass and resort to self serving behaviour

If you want to demonstrate that you have these core values then by all means ensure there is a punishment on top of time served already under suspension. However once thats done part of the recovery and reconciliation should involve some work in the community to repair the damage done. Some work with some of the groups protesting, some work visiting schools and rugby clubs, talking to youngsters, male and female about issues such as consent, respect and communication. I doubt those youngsters will pull back from asking the tough questions and maybe by doing such work PJ and SO would have become a lot wiser about how they are percieved, both before and after this whole sorry episode and the responsibility they have on teh their shoulders when they wear the White or Green jersey

The IRFU had all those sponsors saying we are concerned that the behaviour of these players will affect our brand, our values are being damaged so get rid of the problem rather than take an opportunity to each dip into their corporate funds and create a campaign of education, to be in the vanguard of a campaign to try to address the misogyny that is not simply a rugby problem. Thats where you find out if you live by your values when they get tested and you take positive and affirmative action to engage with the problem at root and branch level. Not simply prune a couple of problems and exile them. That isn't fixing much at all. Its barely a message of disapproval if you pay them off to do so without them seeking legal redress and the whole spotlight moves away.

I confess its an odd quote to use, but as Field Marshall Foch said of the Versaille Treaty in 1919, "This isnt peace, this is a twenty year Armistice" - well I don't think this fixes anything really, it prunes the problem for the sake of PR by making SO & PJ scapegoats for a much wider problem. It kicks it into the long grass rather than genuinely addressing the behaviour of young sports stars and other youngsters both male and female. As such I think its an opportunity missed.

[SerjeantWildgoose]

No one has denied Jackson and Olding the right to earn a living; they have just been denied the privilege of continuing to earn a living in Ireland in a sport that they have brought into disrepute. I think that they are both now so toxic as to be dangerous signings, but equally I have no doubt that the less morally-robust and deep-pocketed owners of some English or French club will already have dangled contracts in front of them.

Bullshit.

Munster sign drug cheats.

The IRFU and their provinces are not of sound moral values. This decision was made to save face - not because it was the right thing to do. They are hypocrites and I suspect you know this.

I have to agree that there are varied standards at play and I was and remain pretty hacked off over the decision to offer a year's contract to Grobeler, particularly since the timing allowed some of us to perceive the whole thing as a swap with Donnacha Ryan going to Racing and us getting a convicted drug cheat in exchange (Notwithstanding that Grobeler is pretty shyte). But I would argue that this does not stand up as a viable comparator to the issue in question here. Grobeler served a lengthy ban and has, in the view of the rugby authorities, now been rehabilitated sufficiently to return to the game.

Jackson and Olding have now had their conduct considered by the appropriate rugby authority and it is that authority's view that they do not wish to be represented by these men. The conditions of their contracts allow for such a determination so what is the problem?

I said earlier that the court of morals would - and should - set a far higher bar in terms of its scrutiny of Jackson's and Olding's behaviour than the criminal court could ever have done. You have rather naively taken the acquittals to mean that the accused have done nothing wrong. I take the different view that the acquittals simply establish that the defence lawyers were able to introduce a sufficient degree of doubt so as to preclude their conviction. I do not question the validity of the verdicts, though the legal system that is weighted so heavily against the prosecution seems far from satisfactory in its capacity to deal with allegations involving sexual abuse, assault of rape.

Having said all of this, I agree with you that this decision was made to save face - although I would put it differently. It was made to protect the reputation and public standing of the sport and of these particular brands. I disagree that it was not the right thing to do; in my opinion it most assuredly was and it is no act of hypocrisy on the part of the IRFU or Ulster Rugby. (Hard luck; your suspicion is bollocks.)

[SerjeantWildgoose]

... if it ever gets out that Im really Keith Wood ...

Keith Chegwin would be more credible.

[OptimisticJock]

I've not got much of a problem with them being sacked given their conduct after the event.

[Spiffy]

A sad ending to a sad business all round. There are no winners in this lose-lose situation. Jackson and Olding have paid a heavy and permanent price for a stupid night's behaviour. This one incident will stick with them, on and off the field, for the rest of their lives. Likewise, life will never be the same for the woman who brought the charge against them.
In reality, I think it would have been well-nigh impossible for them to appear on rugby fields in Ireland without a backlash from opposition fans and pressure groups.
It may also be more difficult than many predict for them to sign for French or English clubs, who may be unwilling to risk disapproval from their own fans, and just don't need the hassle or baggage associated with this case. They may well never play top level rugby again.

[hugh_woatmeigh]

I've not got much of a problem with them being sacked given their conduct after the event.

I think you might find that both of our pro teams would be short of a full squad if you truly believe this is sackable stuff.

You quite OK with John Hardie carrying on?

[OptimisticJock]

I've not got much of a problem with them being sacked given their conduct after the event.

I think you might find that both of our pro teams would be short of a full squad if you truly believe this is sackable stuff.

You quite OK with John Hardie carrying on?

I'd get the sack so I've no issue with them getting the sack.

Same as Hardie. If he'd been given the boot I wouldn't have had any problem.

[Mellsblue]

Im fairly consistent (I think) that I think any punishment should fit the crime, it should be sufficiently severe to communicate the need for change and sufficiently lenient to allow the opportunity for that change to happen. I was always taught that the art of a good bollocking is to make the person go away thinking, damn Ive been a fool, Ive let myself down there NOT that manager/authority is a bastard and resenting the way they have been treated. Its hard to do but balance is achievable.

I dont think that was done this time. There is a lot of division over this, public flame wars have served to polarise opinions and a lot of good messages about changes that are beneficial are being lost.
- Improvements to the way alleged rape victims are treated by the Gards/Police
- The way the PPS present cases for trial
- The protection of anonymity for both alleged victim and accused
- The way the media report cases,
- The way players conduct themselves on the pitch and off it
- The way social media is used to react to verdicts

These are all aspects that have come under the microscope amongst others and would be worth examining to see how they could be improved given the low reporting rate of rape cases and the poor conviction rate of cases that go to court. I think those things should be addressed by a wide spectrum of different bodies. Each has a part to play, because fixing one bit won't do it on its own.


Im only seeing evidence that this was done to sweep it away from the IRFUs doorstep because the sponsors got twitchy. Not without reason, what they did was an appalling way to treat that girl. But they were found Not Guilty and therefore presumed innocent of a rape. The text exchanges in their WhatsApp group were a private conversation and have only come to the publics attention due to the criminal case and the media scrum.

The IRFU are now using what happened in someones own home between consenting adults and a private conversation within a limited group to sack someone. (In PJ's case a single 10 word text) I think thats a dangerous precedent to set. Thats a very low bar. Put it this way, examine the contents of your own messages on this forum on occasion and are you squeaky clean? I know Im not and if it ever gets out that Im really Keith Wood my career as a pundit sat next to Sonia is over!

I do find it somewhat ironic that we should be taking our lessons in values from the Bank of Ireland now. But thats a whole can of worms.

The thing about values is they are only truly values if you live by them, otherwise they are at best high sounding platitudes and at worst a load of crap you use to present yourself in a favourable way but when tested you don't pass and resort to self serving behaviour

If you want to demonstrate that you have these core values then by all means ensure there is a punishment on top of time served already under suspension. However once thats done part of the recovery and reconciliation should involve some work in the community to repair the damage done. Some work with some of the groups protesting, some work visiting schools and rugby clubs, talking to youngsters, male and female about issues such as consent, respect and communication. I doubt those youngsters will pull back from asking the tough questions and maybe by doing such work PJ and SO would have become a lot wiser about how they are percieved, both before and after this whole sorry episode and the responsibility they have on teh their shoulders when they wear the White or Green jersey

The IRFU had all those sponsors saying we are concerned that the behaviour of these players will affect our brand, our values are being damaged so get rid of the problem rather than take an opportunity to each dip into their corporate funds and create a campaign of education, to be in the vanguard of a campaign to try to address the misogyny that is not simply a rugby problem. Thats where you find out if you live by your values when they get tested and you take positive and affirmative action to engage with the problem at root and branch level. Not simply prune a couple of problems and exile them. That isn't fixing much at all. Its barely a message of disapproval if you pay them off to do so without them seeking legal redress and the whole spotlight moves away.

I confess its an odd quote to use, but as Field Marshall Foch said of the Versaille Treaty in 1919, "This isnt peace, this is a twenty year Armistice" - well I don't think this fixes anything really, it prunes the problem for the sake of PR by making SO & PJ scapegoats for a much wider problem. It kicks it into the long grass rather than genuinely addressing the behaviour of young sports stars and other youngsters both male and female. As such I think its an opportunity missed.

This. A thousand times over.

[Peat]

Sad day for Ulster Rugby on a number of levels.

When I made the very odd decision to support Ulster, part of my reasoning is that there was a certain amount of comfort level for me in watching a team in white piss all their chances up the wall. But back then, Ulster didn't really have a chance. The emergence of a number of talented youngsters all at once changed that, and few more so than Paddy Jackson. At his best he's got it all. Last year before this all broke we were really talking about him as a threat to Sexton's dominance as Ireland's 10. Olding never had that level of influence but good grief he's fun to watch. I think any hope of Ulster gaining silverware in the near future rested as heavily on them as anything else other than "forward recruitment". I'll sorely miss watching them, supporting them - and admiring them.

But, well, Ulster have lived up (or down) to the expectations I was originally given (by a crowd now mostly gone). They'd lost my admiration whatever happened. It's sad that Ulster (and the IRFU, who probably had final call on this decision) were ever put in this position by people, who by their own admission, should have known better.

I hope they find a redemption of some sorts as people.

And I hope the many young sportsmen out there living it large take the right lessons from this. They're probably far from the only guys out there it could have happened to.

[BBD]

Im fairly consistent (I think) that I think any punishment should fit the crime, it should be sufficiently severe to communicate the need for change and sufficiently lenient to allow the opportunity for that change to happen. I was always taught that the art of a good bollocking is to make the person go away thinking, damn Ive been a fool, Ive let myself down there NOT that manager/authority is a bastard and resenting the way they have been treated. Its hard to do but balance is achievable.

I dont think that was done this time. There is a lot of division over this, public flame wars have served to polarise opinions and a lot of good messages about changes that are beneficial are being lost.
- Improvements to the way alleged rape victims are treated by the Gards/Police
- The way the PPS present cases for trial
- The protection of anonymity for both alleged victim and accused
- The way the media report cases,
- The way players conduct themselves on the pitch and off it
- The way social media is used to react to verdicts

These are all aspects that have come under the microscope amongst others and would be worth examining to see how they could be improved given the low reporting rate of rape cases and the poor conviction rate of cases that go to court. I think those things should be addressed by a wide spectrum of different bodies. Each has a part to play, because fixing one bit won't do it on its own.


Im only seeing evidence that this was done to sweep it away from the IRFUs doorstep because the sponsors got twitchy. Not without reason, what they did was an appalling way to treat that girl. But they were found Not Guilty and therefore presumed innocent of a rape. The text exchanges in their WhatsApp group were a private conversation and have only come to the publics attention due to the criminal case and the media scrum.

The IRFU are now using what happened in someones own home between consenting adults and a private conversation within a limited group to sack someone. (In PJ's case a single 10 word text) I think thats a dangerous precedent to set. Thats a very low bar. Put it this way, examine the contents of your own messages on this forum on occasion and are you squeaky clean? I know Im not and if it ever gets out that Im really Keith Wood my career as a pundit sat next to Sonia is over!

I do find it somewhat ironic that we should be taking our lessons in values from the Bank of Ireland now. But thats a whole can of worms.

The thing about values is they are only truly values if you live by them, otherwise they are at best high sounding platitudes and at worst a load of crap you use to present yourself in a favourable way but when tested you don't pass and resort to self serving behaviour

If you want to demonstrate that you have these core values then by all means ensure there is a punishment on top of time served already under suspension. However once thats done part of the recovery and reconciliation should involve some work in the community to repair the damage done. Some work with some of the groups protesting, some work visiting schools and rugby clubs, talking to youngsters, male and female about issues such as consent, respect and communication. I doubt those youngsters will pull back from asking the tough questions and maybe by doing such work PJ and SO would have become a lot wiser about how they are percieved, both before and after this whole sorry episode and the responsibility they have on teh their shoulders when they wear the White or Green jersey

The IRFU had all those sponsors saying we are concerned that the behaviour of these players will affect our brand, our values are being damaged so get rid of the problem rather than take an opportunity to each dip into their corporate funds and create a campaign of education, to be in the vanguard of a campaign to try to address the misogyny that is not simply a rugby problem. Thats where you find out if you live by your values when they get tested and you take positive and affirmative action to engage with the problem at root and branch level. Not simply prune a couple of problems and exile them. That isn't fixing much at all. Its barely a message of disapproval if you pay them off to do so without them seeking legal redress and the whole spotlight moves away.

I confess its an odd quote to use, but as Field Marshall Foch said of the Versaille Treaty in 1919, "This isnt peace, this is a twenty year Armistice" - well I don't think this fixes anything really, it prunes the problem for the sake of PR by making SO & PJ scapegoats for a much wider problem. It kicks it into the long grass rather than genuinely addressing the behaviour of young sports stars and other youngsters both male and female. As such I think its an opportunity missed.

This. A thousand times over.

See! Mellsblue believes Im really Keith Wood

[Mellsblue]

Im fairly consistent (I think) that I think any punishment should fit the crime, it should be sufficiently severe to communicate the need for change and sufficiently lenient to allow the opportunity for that change to happen. I was always taught that the art of a good bollocking is to make the person go away thinking, damn Ive been a fool, Ive let myself down there NOT that manager/authority is a bastard and resenting the way they have been treated. Its hard to do but balance is achievable.

I dont think that was done this time. There is a lot of division over this, public flame wars have served to polarise opinions and a lot of good messages about changes that are beneficial are being lost.
- Improvements to the way alleged rape victims are treated by the Gards/Police
- The way the PPS present cases for trial
- The protection of anonymity for both alleged victim and accused
- The way the media report cases,
- The way players conduct themselves on the pitch and off it
- The way social media is used to react to verdicts

These are all aspects that have come under the microscope amongst others and would be worth examining to see how they could be improved given the low reporting rate of rape cases and the poor conviction rate of cases that go to court. I think those things should be addressed by a wide spectrum of different bodies. Each has a part to play, because fixing one bit won't do it on its own.


Im only seeing evidence that this was done to sweep it away from the IRFUs doorstep because the sponsors got twitchy. Not without reason, what they did was an appalling way to treat that girl. But they were found Not Guilty and therefore presumed innocent of a rape. The text exchanges in their WhatsApp group were a private conversation and have only come to the publics attention due to the criminal case and the media scrum.

The IRFU are now using what happened in someones own home between consenting adults and a private conversation within a limited group to sack someone. (In PJ's case a single 10 word text) I think thats a dangerous precedent to set. Thats a very low bar. Put it this way, examine the contents of your own messages on this forum on occasion and are you squeaky clean? I know Im not and if it ever gets out that Im really Keith Wood my career as a pundit sat next to Sonia is over!

I do find it somewhat ironic that we should be taking our lessons in values from the Bank of Ireland now. But thats a whole can of worms.

The thing about values is they are only truly values if you live by them, otherwise they are at best high sounding platitudes and at worst a load of crap you use to present yourself in a favourable way but when tested you don't pass and resort to self serving behaviour

If you want to demonstrate that you have these core values then by all means ensure there is a punishment on top of time served already under suspension. However once thats done part of the recovery and reconciliation should involve some work in the community to repair the damage done. Some work with some of the groups protesting, some work visiting schools and rugby clubs, talking to youngsters, male and female about issues such as consent, respect and communication. I doubt those youngsters will pull back from asking the tough questions and maybe by doing such work PJ and SO would have become a lot wiser about how they are percieved, both before and after this whole sorry episode and the responsibility they have on teh their shoulders when they wear the White or Green jersey

The IRFU had all those sponsors saying we are concerned that the behaviour of these players will affect our brand, our values are being damaged so get rid of the problem rather than take an opportunity to each dip into their corporate funds and create a campaign of education, to be in the vanguard of a campaign to try to address the misogyny that is not simply a rugby problem. Thats where you find out if you live by your values when they get tested and you take positive and affirmative action to engage with the problem at root and branch level. Not simply prune a couple of problems and exile them. That isn't fixing much at all. Its barely a message of disapproval if you pay them off to do so without them seeking legal redress and the whole spotlight moves away.

I confess its an odd quote to use, but as Field Marshall Foch said of the Versaille Treaty in 1919, "This isnt peace, this is a twenty year Armistice" - well I don't think this fixes anything really, it prunes the problem for the sake of PR by making SO & PJ scapegoats for a much wider problem. It kicks it into the long grass rather than genuinely addressing the behaviour of young sports stars and other youngsters both male and female. As such I think its an opportunity missed.

This. A thousand times over.

See! Mellsblue believes Im really Keith Wood

In my defence, it's a lot more plausible than some of the theories that are in the public realm at the minute.