Paddy Jackson apology

Started by yellowcard, April 06, 2018, 02:32:16 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

magpie seanie

Quote from: brokencrossbar1 on June 14, 2019, 10:49:52 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on June 14, 2019, 09:58:47 AM
They cynic would see this as opportunist by Diageo. There has been a push back in the UK and indeed Europe over alcohol sponsorship in sport, club rugby is near the bottom when it comes to sport sponsorship anyway. What Diageo would pay to be official beer of London Irish would be peanuts in relative sporting partnership terms. They refused to even meet London Irish, so to me opportunistic and having seen the cause of alcohol addiction within my own extended family Diageo have no moral high ground. Diageo are simply exploiting a rape case for their own benefit.

Now now Dinny, don't be bringing all that logic into this...

I'm not sure what non logical conversation there has been here about this current situation. I've no doubt this is opportunism by Diageo, especially in the light of their victim blaming "drink responsibly" ad a few years ago. Thing is though, London Irish gave them the opportunity and should have known better.

Agree on a total ban on gambling sponsorship. Not as convinced on alcohol sponsorship. I personally think alcohol sponsorship might impact the brand you choose, not so much how often or how much you drink. Gambling ads the way they are now I'd say is definitely leading to increased betting activity. That said I'd not wory overly if alcohol sponsorsihp was totally banned.

Dinny Breen

Quote from: Main Street on June 14, 2019, 11:25:48 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on June 14, 2019, 09:58:47 AM
They cynic would see this as opportunist by Diageo. There has been a push back in the UK and indeed Europe over alcohol sponsorship in sport, club rugby is near the bottom when it comes to sport sponsorship anyway. What Diageo would pay to be official beer of London Irish would be peanuts in relative sporting partnership terms. They refused to even meet London Irish, so to me opportunistic and having seen the cause of alcohol addiction within my own extended family Diageo have no moral high ground. Diageo are simply exploiting a rape case for their own benefit.
That's a dubious statement which calls into question the perceptiveness of the cynic which swallows anything London Irish pour out.
Diageo state clearly that they had met with LI before making their announcement and another meeting is arranged.

I'd opine that all betting and drink sponsorship be banned from sport.

Ok, so Diageo said they met, that must be true so. Do you know the context of the meeting? Are you privy to the agenda and the minutes?

QuoteOn Thursday, a London Irish spokesman said the club's management was "understandably disappointed" by Diageo's decision – "particularly the manner in which the company has chosen" not to renew its sponsorship deal.

"The club has always respected the right for everyone to have an opinion, and their right to express that opinion. London Irish has been open and honest with all of its sponsors, including offering to meet Diageo's senior management in Dublin in May, 2019. This offer was not taken up.

Sounds really dubious  ::)

Having spent most of my working life working for corporations I still can't believe people swallow corporate BS. Maybe confirmation bias has a role.

And absolutely all drink and in particularly betting sponsorship should be banned.
#newbridgeornowhere

seafoid

Quote from: Dinny Breen on June 14, 2019, 01:09:44 PM
Quote from: Main Street on June 14, 2019, 11:25:48 AM
Quote from: Dinny Breen on June 14, 2019, 09:58:47 AM
They cynic would see this as opportunist by Diageo. There has been a push back in the UK and indeed Europe over alcohol sponsorship in sport, club rugby is near the bottom when it comes to sport sponsorship anyway. What Diageo would pay to be official beer of London Irish would be peanuts in relative sporting partnership terms. They refused to even meet London Irish, so to me opportunistic and having seen the cause of alcohol addiction within my own extended family Diageo have no moral high ground. Diageo are simply exploiting a rape case for their own benefit.
That's a dubious statement which calls into question the perceptiveness of the cynic which swallows anything London Irish pour out.
Diageo state clearly that they had met with LI before making their announcement and another meeting is arranged.

I'd opine that all betting and drink sponsorship be banned from sport.

Ok, so Diageo said they met, that must be true so. Do you know the context of the meeting? Are you privy to the agenda and the minutes?

QuoteOn Thursday, a London Irish spokesman said the club's management was "understandably disappointed" by Diageo's decision – "particularly the manner in which the company has chosen" not to renew its sponsorship deal.

"The club has always respected the right for everyone to have an opinion, and their right to express that opinion. London Irish has been open and honest with all of its sponsors, including offering to meet Diageo's senior management in Dublin in May, 2019. This offer was not taken up.

Sounds really dubious  ::)

Having spent most of my working life working for corporations I still can't believe people swallow corporate BS. Maybe confirmation bias has a role.

And absolutely all drink and in particularly betting sponsorship should be banned.

Global sales of alcohol fell by 1.6% last year. Diageo have enough shit to deal with without
adding Paddy Jackson as a chaser

Plus

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/paddy-whiskey-reviewing-its-partnership-with-london-irish-amid-paddy-jackson-deal-1.3926265
"f**k it, just score"- Donaghy   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbxG2WwVRjU

Hound

If Diageo actually had a moral concern, we'd have heard nothing about it at all. Months later, some eagle eyed person might have noticed they disappeared from the London Irish website and matches.

Instead, they issue a statement saying they are considering their position = plenty of publicity

Then, without meeting LI again, they issue a statement saying they've ended their sponsorship

Loads of free publicity and they actually save money. Marketing coup!

Over the Bar


Angelo

What about the chap who goes around pissing on people in bars?
GAA FUNDING CHEATS CHEAT US ALL

fearsiuil

Quote from: Angelo on June 16, 2019, 04:50:48 PM
What about the chap who goes around pissing on people in bars?

Jelly fish sting.


Main Street

Does a libel judgement in a UK court have any weight against an Irish  citizen residing in the Republic?

Owen Brannigan

In the end a judgement will create a debt against the person and until Brexit a debt can be pursued across borders by following procedures. In the end, this action is about putting down markers and precedent for going after social media posters.

Main Street

Quote from: Owen Brannigan on July 22, 2019, 09:34:59 PM
In the end a judgement will create a debt against the person and until Brexit a debt can be pursued across borders by following procedures. In the end, this action is about putting down markers and precedent for going after social media posters.
I don't fall for the higher moral ground theory.
Judging by the selected target (someone with money),  this libel action is more motivated by the possibility to extract money.
Otherwise any tom, dick or harry could have been chosen.

I find it wierd that somone in say Latvia could be sued for libel with a biased process under UK NI law. Who's going to chose to defend themselves in a Belfast court even if they are advised that they have a just cause.  If the lady is to be sued, let her be sued in a court in the republic, under a law that she has to answer to.

David McKeown

Quote from: Main Street on July 22, 2019, 10:27:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on July 22, 2019, 09:34:59 PM
In the end a judgement will create a debt against the person and until Brexit a debt can be pursued across borders by following procedures. In the end, this action is about putting down markers and precedent for going after social media posters.
I don't fall for the higher moral ground theory.
Judging by the selected target (someone with money),  this libel action is more motivated by the possibility to extract money.
Otherwise any tom, dick or harry could have been chosen.

I find it wierd that somone in say Latvia could be sued for libel with a biased process under UK NI law. Who's going to chose to defend themselves in a Belfast court even if they are advised that they have a just cause.  If the lady is to be sued, let her be sued in a court in the republic, under a law that she has to answer to.

It's a difficult subject. The mans reputation is in NI. Defamation law exists to protect that reputation. It's only right and proper that the courts in that area offer him a form of redress where his reputation was most significantly harmed. EU law even allows for some legal actions to be heard by courts close to the plaintiff not where the injury loss or damage occurred. I've personally had to sue Aer Lingus in recent years and did so in Northern Ireland.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Main Street

Quote from: David McKeown on July 23, 2019, 12:21:48 AM
Quote from: Main Street on July 22, 2019, 10:27:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on July 22, 2019, 09:34:59 PM
In the end a judgement will create a debt against the person and until Brexit a debt can be pursued across borders by following procedures. In the end, this action is about putting down markers and precedent for going after social media posters.
I don't fall for the higher moral ground theory.
Judging by the selected target (someone with money),  this libel action is more motivated by the possibility to extract money.
Otherwise any tom, dick or harry could have been chosen.

I find it wierd that somone in say Latvia could be sued for libel with a biased process under UK NI law. Who's going to chose to defend themselves in a Belfast court even if they are advised that they have a just cause.  If the lady is to be sued, let her be sued in a court in the republic, under a law that she has to answer to.

It's a difficult subject. The mans reputation is in NI. Defamation law exists to protect that reputation. It's only right and proper that the courts in that area offer him a form of redress where his reputation was most significantly harmed. EU law even allows for some legal actions to be heard by courts close to the plaintiff not where the injury loss or damage occurred. I've personally had to sue Aer Lingus in recent years and did so in Northern Ireland.
Court cases are different, I assume you had to prove the merits of your case to the court's satisfaction in order to get a favourable judgement.

Jackson does not have to prove damage to his reputation in order to gain a favourable judgement, he only has to show evidence that the words were written.
All that's probably needed in this case to satisfy a rational court is a retraction from the accused and for the court to examine first the evidence of any genuine attempts to seek such a solution.



David McKeown

Quote from: Main Street on July 23, 2019, 11:56:15 AM
Quote from: David McKeown on July 23, 2019, 12:21:48 AM
Quote from: Main Street on July 22, 2019, 10:27:16 PM
Quote from: Owen Brannigan on July 22, 2019, 09:34:59 PM
In the end a judgement will create a debt against the person and until Brexit a debt can be pursued across borders by following procedures. In the end, this action is about putting down markers and precedent for going after social media posters.
I don't fall for the higher moral ground theory.
Judging by the selected target (someone with money),  this libel action is more motivated by the possibility to extract money.
Otherwise any tom, dick or harry could have been chosen.

I find it wierd that somone in say Latvia could be sued for libel with a biased process under UK NI law. Who's going to chose to defend themselves in a Belfast court even if they are advised that they have a just cause.  If the lady is to be sued, let her be sued in a court in the republic, under a law that she has to answer to.

It's a difficult subject. The mans reputation is in NI. Defamation law exists to protect that reputation. It's only right and proper that the courts in that area offer him a form of redress where his reputation was most significantly harmed. EU law even allows for some legal actions to be heard by courts close to the plaintiff not where the injury loss or damage occurred. I've personally had to sue Aer Lingus in recent years and did so in Northern Ireland.
Court cases are different, I assume you had to prove the merits of your case to the court's satisfaction in order to get a favourable judgement.

Jackson does not have to prove damage to his reputation in order to gain a favourable judgement, he only has to show evidence that the words were written.
All that's probably needed in this case to satisfy a rational court is a retraction from the accused and for the court to examine first the evidence of any genuine attempts to seek such a solution.

Well the court wouldn't have entertained judgement unless pre proceedings protocols had been followed. Jackson also has to show that the words were capable of causing harm so it's a little more than just the words were written but not much. If there's no evidence of actual harm that will be reflected in the Judgement.
2022 Allianz League Prediction Competition Winner

Capt Pat

Quote from: Capt Pat on June 12, 2019, 01:08:10 AM
I considered opening up a new topic for this post but with this topic at the top of the page I decided there was no need.

Messi, Ronaldo and and Neymar are the three highest paid footballers in the world. 2 of the 3 Ronaldo and Neymar have rape acusations pending against them??? That is all. Discuss

The woman who accused Neymar of rape has been charged with fraud/perverting the course of justice by Brazilian police. Ronaldo will not be charged by the Las Vegas police. He is still being sued by the accuser in a civil suit.

Meanwhile in the NFL antonio Brown has been accused of rape.