Moderator: moderators
Duff Paddy wrote:I was at Rock V Belvo in the semi's and Ruairi Quinn was in front of us, pissed and singing the Rock songs. If that doesn't tell you that we're a joke country, then nothing does!
Completely agree on your last point.Flash Gordon wrote:
What gets my goat is the system of old school ties, favours and protection. It held Ireland back for years economically, politically and even in rugby terms. For me, this kind of incident epitomises that Ireland. Many people in Ireland feel that and that's the angle in the media. Its not the incident itself, which is relatively minor. It’s the way Dermot Desmond and Blackrock College moved to protect boys who in almost any other school in Dublin or anywhere else would have been reportered to the Guards or at least faced substantial sanction from their schools. And the way the boys got off scott free because they played rugby. This is the issue we are discussing. And I think that's a legitimate discussion.
I wouldn't be surprised if that was true. Maybe Tony didn't specifically sanction that piece, but certainly he rules his editors with an iron fist and they'd promote a pro Belvo bias on his part, definitely. More fool anybody who reads his rags.Flash Gordon wrote:2. If you think Tony O'Reilly, a global businessman dealling in billions of Euro every year would take time out to tell the editor of the Indo to publish this report to disrupt Blackrock before a kids rugby match, i think you need to think again to be honest. By the way, it was the editor's decision to run the piece.
.
Flash Gordon wrote:1. What on earth are you talking about. Nobody is talking about a "craddle of anarchy". We are expressing a view on an incident. As indeed is your right. I used the phrase "cradle of anarchy" in a tongue-in-cheek manner. BTW did you see Planet Rugby Schools Shorts in the Irish Times yesterday? If you didn't,. my reference to Anarchy will have gone over your head. There was a cartoon in it referring to the upcoming Final which represented Blackrock in the typeface used by Anarchists. If that isn't a paradox in terms! What I find interesting, is the leaning towards condemnation of Blackrock, rather than perhaps acknowledging that like everywhere, it will have its good and bad apples
2. If you think Tony O'Reilly, a global businessman dealling in billions of Euro every year would take time out to tell the editor of the Indo to publish this report to disrupt Blackrock before a kids rugby match, i think you need to think again to be honest. By the way, it was the editor's decision to run the piece. I was referring to what another contributor had written. I think it's in the thread on Blackrock Students, in this section. And I'd bleedin well hope that Sir Anthony would be above it, but since he always takes time fro his hectic schedule to attend Belvo matches, who knows!
3. There is no implication of anyone on this site, no names. ONE person mentioned that the captain of the team was involved.Nobody commented further. There is no widespread innuuendo and no speculation as to the individuals involved.I'm afraid you're wrong on that. Unfortunately there is innuendo, Flash. And as you well know, I'm' not very happy about it. You yourself said ot me that you'd heard from 3 different people that a particular individual was involved, when I have evidence from reliable sources to suggest he wasn't.
4. On CUS - what I ACTUALLY said was that there was obviously something more to the situation than a few guys giving a "few slaps" and I actually suggested there WAS clearly more to it and that bullying was very very serious. I'd actually appreciate an apology on this one for misrepresenting my views. Sure thing - apologies if you feel I'm misrepresenting your views. I think your views are clearly stated for all to see, so you shouldn't feel the need to ask for an apology. But clearly you do - and that's fine, it's your right. As we live in Ireland and not in North Korea. Etc. What I did have an issue with, was somehow comparing the reaction of CUS to an assault on a pupil, with the reaction Blackrock to vandalism on a car. I know which action I'd have more of an issue with. Concussion to a minor is not funny. In fact, I'm willing to bet it could be classified as GBH.
5. I think its interesting that you question others' right to discuss or debate on the Blackrock incident but that you feel its ok to issue an opinion on the CUS incident, which as you rightly point out is far more serious. ..Care to provide an explanation for this apparently contradictory view? It's not contradictory, and I don't think it's appropriate to twist my views like that, to be honest. I don't question anyone's right to discuss anything. Remember my statement on North Korea! You saw my comment to CM yesterday regarding opinions and discusssing same. What I definitely do have an issue iwth, is blanket condemnation without all the facts.
What gets my goat is the system of old school ties, favours and protection. It held Ireland back for years economically, politically and even in rugby terms. For me, this kind of incident epitomises that Ireland. Many people in Ireland feel that and that's the angle in the media. Its not the incident itself, which is relatively minor. It’s the way Dermot Desmond and Blackrock College moved to protect boys who in almost any other school in Dublin or anywhere else would have been reportered to the Guards or at least faced substantial sanction from their schools. And the way the boys got off scott free because they played rugby. This is the issue we are discussing. And I think that's a legitimate discussion.
No, I didn't, actually. Read the post again. I suggested that concussion on a minor might well be classed at such. I didn't level an accusation. I wrote based on what another poster had written here, but also tempered that both here an on the other thread with the need to exercise caution with regard to conjecture.Flash Gordon wrote:Hold on you actually levelled a suggestion that the kids might be guilty of GBH! On what evidence? Basically upon the word of a poster that the kid had concussion, a poster you know nothing about!
If you're going to highlight issues that you feel we have with regard to conjecture, that you should look long and hard at your own behaviour.
So, to be clear, you're telling me that you weren't engaged in conjecture or speculation at all?ckav wrote:No, I didn't, actually. Read the post again. I suggested that concussion on a minor might well be classed at such. I didn't level an accusation. I wrote based on what another poster had written here, but also tempered that both here an on the other thread with the need to exercise caution with regard to conjecture.Flash Gordon wrote:Hold on you actually levelled a suggestion that the kids might be guilty of GBH! On what evidence? Basically upon the word of a poster that the kid had concussion, a poster you know nothing about!
If you're going to highlight issues that you feel we have with regard to conjecture, that you should look long and hard at your own behaviour.
I said it yesterday also, when the apparent Concussion story was being bandied about. And I've reiterated it today on that thread, and here.
I'm sorry - but when you make a comment like "it appeared that the incident was far more serious...." engaging in conjecture is EXACTLY what your're doing.ckav wrote:Flash, to be very very clear - I stated that concussion of a minor was indeed a serious offence, and could even be classed in GBH terms.
HOWEVER I emphasised the need for caution, in any conjecture that this had happened and asked for more detail as the story itself seemed sketchy enough. There are 2 posts from me with regard to the CUS story, one yesterday and one today, which state as much.
I didn't suggest that anyone was guilty - if you look carefully at what I've written, you'll see I've emphasised the need for more detail before making any judgements!
I mentioned that it APPEARED that the incident was far more serious than had orginally reported, but that we needed more detail to be certain! And as it turns out, the whole story is completely garbled by now. Which kinda backs up my point.....
Hope that this clarifies.
I think you're taking it a bit far . I think the inference was that it was interesting that in the week of a big grudge match, a slanted article appeared in a paper which cast aspersions on the opposite team and school. I don't recall saying that Tony O'Reilly planted the story himself, by the way..and seeing as how we're splitting hairs, I think these days he prefers to be called Sir Anthony O'Reilly and not Mr.... And if his lawyers want to find me, sure they can look me up under Ckav in the phone book. Unless you want to put them in touch with me directlyFlash Gordon wrote:By the way - here's another point, one of the lads was speculating that Indo owner Tony O'Reilly might have been behind planting the story at the time he did.....that's again EXTREME speculation. How come you didn't have a problem with that? Its a pretty serious allegation and you seem ok with that one!:
"Someone made a valid point on this site about the fact that the story broke, in the way it did, and with the slant it did, in a paper owned by a famous ex-Belvedere rugby player the week that Rock and Belvo were to meet in the Schools cup semi final."
By the way, that's not a view I'd put in the public domain, i think Mr.Oreilly and his lawyers would take exception to it......
You're missing the point.....again!!!ckav wrote:I think you're taking it a bit far to suggest that I said that Tony printed the story himself. I think the inference was that it was interesting that in the week of a big grudge match, a slanted article appeared in a paper which cast aspersions on the opposite team and school. I don't recall saying that Tony O'Reilly planted the story himself, by the way..and seeing as how we're splitting hairs, I think these days he prefers to be called Sir Anthony O'Reilly and not Mr.... And if his lawyers want to find me, sure they can look me up under Ckav in the phone book. Unless you want to put them in touch with me directlyFlash Gordon wrote:By the way - here's another point, one of the lads was speculating that Indo owner Tony O'Reilly might have been behind planting the story at the time he did.....that's again EXTREME speculation. How come you didn't have a problem with that? Its a pretty serious allegation and you seem ok with that one!:
"Someone made a valid point on this site about the fact that the story broke, in the way it did, and with the slant it did, in a paper owned by a famous ex-Belvedere rugby player the week that Rock and Belvo were to meet in the Schools cup semi final."
By the way, that's not a view I'd put in the public domain, i think Mr.Oreilly and his lawyers would take exception to it......
