Are the french more forgiving?

[VM75]

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/44411185

Both players sign for french clubs, co-incidence? or are the french [supporters/club officials & press] merely more forgiving about such matters?

In contrast many in the UK applauded the IRFU decision for it's tough 'game values' stance

who's right?

 

[SimonSmith]

There isn't a right answer.

They are, by law, not guilty of the charges. You could argue that their behavior was reprehensible and contrary to decent values. You could argue that they went through a process, and are not guilty and their behavior is not atypical of a lot of people their age. Role models...I'm sure we can trot out every argument under the sun.

To use one of our MSF, YMMV.

What I know: If I, in my job/career function, had done everything they had done, I would be unhireable. I'd have to move State/Country/Job function.

For my money? If they stayed unemployed, I wouldn't shed a tear.

 

[Ian_Cook]

"Two weeks after the players' acquittals, the IRFU and Ulster revoked their contracts with immediate effect following controversy over details of social media and text messages which emerged during the trial.


An IRFU/Ulster Rugby statement said: "In arriving at this decision, the Irish Rugby Football Union and Ulster Rugby acknowledge our responsibility and commitment to the core values of the game: Respect, inclusivity and integrity."

IRFU/Ulster seem to have missed seeing the word I have highlighted. It means they are deemed by the court to be NOT guilty, i.e. to have NOT done the things they were accused of. This should mean that the state of affairs should be restored to how things were before they were accused, i.e. it never happened.

Now, I am not so much concerned about this case, as I am about the precedent it sets that it become possible for a mere accusation (founded, or unfounded) to be sufficient for a termination of contract.

If you want to see how this can be misused, SimonSmith will realise because he lives in the USA, and will have heard about something called "Title IX" where a person can be found guilty by their tertiary educational institution and lose their job/career/contract without even being aware that they have been charged.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/sports/keith-mumphery-michigan-state.html

 

[crossref]

The two were sacked because of the messages they exchanged where they boasted about the actions they were found not guilty of.
I wouldn't want them in my rugby club

People may not have followed this case : before having a strong opinion people should read the details. Even if you decided you believed 100% in their account you wouldn't want to employ them in your rugby club .

 

[damo]

"Two weeks after the players' acquittals, the IRFU and Ulster revoked their contracts with immediate effect following controversy over details of social media and text messages which emerged during the trial.


An IRFU/Ulster Rugby statement said: "In arriving at this decision, the Irish Rugby Football Union and Ulster Rugby acknowledge our responsibility and commitment to the core values of the game: Respect, inclusivity and integrity."

IRFU/Ulster seem to have missed seeing the word I have highlighted. It means they are deemed by the court to be NOT guilty, i.e. to have NOT done the things they were accused of. This should mean that the state of affairs should be restored to how things were before they were accused, i.e. it never happened.

Now, I am not so much concerned about this case, as I am about the precedent it sets that it become possible for a mere accusation (founded, or unfounded) to be sufficient for a termination of contract.

If you want to see how this can be misused, SimonSmith will realise because he lives in the USA, and will have heard about something called "Title IX" where a person can be found guilty by their tertiary educational institution and lose their job/career/contract without even being aware that they have been charged.



https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/30/sports/keith-mumphery-michigan-state.html

Ian it seems to me that being not found guilty of rape does not mean that the club is prevented from finding other aspects (which did not amount to rape) of their behavior unacceptable.

I haven't followed the case really closely, but I have read enough to think that what they have themselves admitted to was worthy of sanctions by their clubs. I think it's a false dichotomy to say that just because they were found not guilty of one charge that there should not be consequences for their actions. Oftentimes I would agree with you, but not in this case

 

[didds]

The two were sacked because of the messages they exchanged where they boasted about the actions they were found not guilty of.
I wouldn't want them in my rugby club

People may not have followed this case : before having a strong opinion people should read the details. Even if you decided you believed 100% in their account you wouldn't want to employ them in your rugby club .

Well, I think that is down to the rugby club and discussions that are had between said club and the individuals concerned. And if your club chooses not to employ them - as is its wont - its none of their business that another club does. You could refuse to play that club i suppose - but Id expect a competition's governing body to deal with the refusing club appropriately as a result.

The ultimate extreme would be that nobody ever employed these young men ever again and the tax payer would support them throughout the next 60-ish years of their lives. Hardly a positive outcome either. There would be an awful lot of unemployed/unemployable young (and not so young) men and women if (unethical, immoral etc etc) text messages were a reason to never employ anybody.

didds

 

[DocY]

Ultimately the decision rests with the IRFU/Ulster, whatever the court says.

As I understand it, during their trial some details about their behaviour emerged that, while not illegal, their employer wasn't happy about and deemed met the threshold for sackings.

IMO it's easy to see why, when your employees are in the public eye, you would want them to uphold certain standards of behaviour at all times.

 

[crossref]

Well, I think that is down to the rugby club and discussions that are had between said club and the individuals concerned. And if your club chooses not to employ them - as is its wont - its none of their business that another club does. You could refuse to play that club i suppose - but Id expect a competition's governing body to deal with the refusing club appropriately as a result.

The ultimate extreme would be that nobody ever employed these young men ever again and the tax payer would support them throughout the next 60-ish years of their lives. Hardly a positive outcome either. There would be an awful lot of unemployed/unemployable young (and not so young) men and women if (unethical, immoral etc etc) text messages were a reason to never employ anybody.

didds

didds are you talking about this particular case ? Or in general terms . I don't think you should dismiss the behaviour of those two so lightly . Did you follow the case ?

 

[didds]

I've followed it sufficiently to understand that the sackings were not because of any trial whatever the outcome, but of their actions surrounding the circumstances.

the question asked was whether they should be given employment elsewhere, in effect. I don;t see that "you wouldn't want to employ them in your rugby club ." will necessarily be a universally agreed approach. As clearly the French clubs feel.

I have posted my thoughts regarding the latter, based on the former. I have no issue with their sackings in this regard - I suspect they were in contravention of contractual clauses regarding their behaviour and its reflection on their employers. I have no issue with their future employment in this regard - as I said I would very surprised if their future employment hadn't already included some serious chats about future conduct. But - that would be up to their new employer, not any of us. I pointed out the alternatives from them being provided with any employment, by whoever.

I was also speaking generally. I also suggested it could be that while "your" rugby club may not employ them, another club might. What you choose to do about that when "you" come to play the other club is up to you - but I suspect other than moral high ground maybe, probably not universally shared, any realistic action would be toothless.

I appreciate others' mileage may vary. I am not trying to convert. Merely provide another viewpoint. It doesn;t mean I support any actions that these young men may have or not have done.

didds

 

[VM75]

It's a subject fraught with political & commercial prejudices, When Ched Evans [a not dissimilar footballer case] was eventually acquitted sponsors, gold medal athletes, amongst others all pulled influence over not employing him. Even acquitted associate Clayton McDonald struggled to get employment because of the linked association.

There are clearly different attitudes towards sexual activity across the world, you've only got to see the different 'Age of consent' that exist around the globe to evidence that, it certainly appears like the french are more accepting than the irish in many ways.

In general I'm with Didds' comments [thus far]

 

[SimonSmith]

IRFU/Ulster seem to have missed seeing the word I have highlighted. It means they are deemed by the court to be NOT guilty, i.e. to have NOT done the things they were accused of. This should mean that the state of affairs should be restored to how things were before they were accused, i.e. it never happened.

I'm not sure I agree. "Not Guilty" means that the Prosecution couldn't make the case to the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt.

It isn't a statement that the thing of which they were accused didn't happen.

 

[crossref]

Even if you 100% believed the two men, I don't think many people would want to employ them.
They deserved to be fired because of what the admitted to,

 

[L'irlandais]

I think Northern Ireland is pretty conservative compared to any other region in the UK.
I seem to remember some sponsors had made it clear to the club, it was «*them or us*»; so an element of the club’s sponsor not wishing to be associated with the behaviour of these players.

France and the french have seen worse par exemple. The attitude here seems to be one of separation between private life and professional image. What one gets up to in the bedroom is no one else’s business. So the French are much more liberal than any region of the UK I have experienced’ in that respect. I don’t think it’s a question of forgiveness, rather one of «*don’t see what all the fuss is about, if they can play rugby, that’s what we want from them.*»

Bear in mind French clubs hire and fire freely. If they don’t preform on the field of play they’ll be dropped fairly sharpish. And may still subsequently struggle to find a home country club that will over look the whole affair.

 

[crossref]

Are you familiar with the details of the case?

 

[L'irlandais]

Yes.
However, I was answering the question asked in the thread title and attempting to keep my personal opinion of the trial to myself. After 18 years living and working in this country I was hoping to give some insight into the cultural differences.
Perpignan’s decision to employ Paddy Jackson tells us more about their ambitions to return to Top flight rugby, than it tells us about what they think of his off-the-field shenanigans. Club’s website

 

[crossref]

I think it tells us a number of things about the priorities,culture and values of the club and the people in charge of the club.

And given you are familiar with the case your dismissal of what happened as "shenanigans" tells us a lot about your values

 

[Marc Wakeham]

It's a subject fraught with political & commercial prejudices, When Ched Evans [a not dissimilar footballer case] was eventually acquitted sponsors, gold medal athletes, amongst others all pulled influence over not employing him. Even acquitted associate Clayton McDonald struggled to get employment because of the linked association.

Jessica Ennis requested her name be removed from a stand when Evans was released from prison have served his sentence. Not when he was found not guilty.
He actually served the sentence (with parole) for a crime he was later found not guilty of. So the situation is a little different.

There is an issue if:

1: People can be found guilty by the press and the public. Two groups that do not have the full facts of the case. Indeed the public often rely of papers like the Scum and the Daily HEIL (Sorry Sun and Daily Mail) for the "facts" two of the mosti disgusting examples of "newspaper" in the UK.

2: The basic principle of doing your time and being rehabilitated into society being prevented by "factory doors" being slammed in an ex-con's face. OF course there are jobs that must be closed to a recently released prisoner. In some cases; you'd not allow a child sex offender to work with children or a bank robber to work in a bank etc. BUT unless the person's job played a part in the crime (eg if a sportsman used their "fame" to acess women for the purpose of rape) I think the aim should be that we allow everyone to move on and rebuild there lives.

 

[crossref]

Should these two be legally barred from getting a job? No
Should clubs be legally barred from employing them ? No

Would I have them into my rugby club ?
No

(And Don't you think these two used their status as rugby players?)

 

[Marc Wakeham]

You failed to read my post correctly. I've offered no comment on the case. I am not in a position to as I don't have the facts.

I am putting forward a general principle and correcting an error in an earlier post.

 

[DocY]

And given you are familiar with the case your dismissal of what happened as "shenanigans" tells us a lot about your values

PEEP! Playing the man without the ball!

FWIW I thought L'irlandais' (as someone who's lived in both countries) response was quite informative about the different cultures.