RP London

Surely it depends on context doesn't it? If he has a toothbrush moustache and a brown shirt you could say "he's like Hitler" and everyone knows you mean in appearance rather than jumping straight to racist bigoted anti Semite... In the same way as talking about an incident where someone is being convicted (by the account from Widnes) for tweets going back to 2012 is somewhat similar to Ollie Robinson who was banned for tweets that dated back to 2012... Without having to jump to "gregsons tweets must have had the same content" Looking at the replies on here, it would appear you seem to have been the only one to jump over the obvious similarities into something else.

Can't really disagree with that point

Of course and it is often up to the person who is being offended to feel offence... But if something can be taken 2 ways perhaps think about whether you want it to come across as "the bad one" before you say it, especially online where "tone" is notoriously difficult to gauge... There we go no offence then caused simples

No, its the same as the wording of the anti money laundering rules which is around "any normal person". It's because attitudes and "offence" change so the wording can stay the same but cover it all. What you say one day in a certain way may not be offensive 1 year later or vice versa bit can 100% be judged at the time because we "all know what you mean". That's the point. Judging something from 2012 is not so easy but by going back it can show things like is it just normal language to them but the meaning has changed (like some of us older folk struggling to change language but meaning no offence) or is it developing language all with the same meaning and therefore knowing exactly what it means.

No that's not what these sorts of things say.. you don't have to silently accept transgenderism in children at all.. but you cannot use discriminatory language against people, the two things are not the same. Equally we have not seen (and we may not) the exact wording that has got him in bother.. there is a difference between "I don't like the way Sam smith dresses" and "Sam Smith should not dress like a women HE isn't one!" The second is transphobic as you are deliberately saying that they have no right to wear whatever they like (an opinion but it's stopping you having freedom etc) and you are using deliberate pronouns to cause offence, you know that this will cause offence to that person and anybody else who chooses to use they/them.. etc... I wouldn't ban someone for this but it's just an example that without the exact tweets this is really hard to judge. I use it as deliberately provocative of an argument around pronouns etc because the language can be subtle but highly offensive and it's that which could cause people issues.. and is the difference between vocalising and opinion and being offensive.

interestingly i googled the RFL Social Media policy as I was interested to see when it came in... havent found it yet.. but the first 4 of the top 10 google responses, and all of the responses that were directly back to the RFL website were to amateur teams; Thato Heath, Shevington Sharks, Stanley Rangers and Wyke all of which had variations of the below on their website and also the safeguarding style rules around under 18s and parents etc. So its pretty well out there and reading the below set of rules it makes an awful lot of sense for everybody in life really. Frankly if people stuck to these rules it would be a much nicer place to inhabit. https://thattoheathcrusaders.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Social-Media-Code-of-Conduct.pdf

faire enough sorry. yes I think this is the thing, the ban may be too strong, or maybe not strong enough and a lot of that will depend on the exact language and recurrence of it which we are still to find out about. He has a set of rules laid out by the governing body, if he has broken those he deserves the punishment.

They really don't. A certain section of the population is allowed to say whatever they like, even if it is proven to be factually incorrect. A large proportion of the population do not have this ability and even when they have the actual facts they are told to sit down and shut up.

Was detritus one of Clive Woody's alter egos as well?

Indeed, but they may not employee you in the first place becuase of them..

Indeed.. but on your last sentence.. did he? we havent seen anywhere near enough IMHO to make that call either way. The fact the RFL and an independent tribunal have and have come up with this verdict I would suggest is telling.

There is a difference between having an opinion and being prejudicial and therefore making it that people are not accepted. Again, so far there is a small sample of tweets been shown, when we see the lot then perhaps the idea "it was just an opinion" may change. Perhaps it won't, I'm trying not to judge until more information comes through but just putting across the way these things tend to work. You'd really struggle to argue that last point to be fair, its often thrown at this type of thing as "well your not including my opinion" and it just doesn't work like that.. If you want to go into why I suggest that's for a separate topic in the politics forum as it would derail this one quickly..

Its probably a mixture of the 2... many clubs could well still have sat back not realising that they were the target if the TV money was still coming in.. Carrot and Stick combination etc as they tend not to work on their own.

and is that the one he gets the ban for? maybe its just an example that has been put up there for someone to prove a point (either way) and it isnt actually one they were worried about.. I havent seen it so wouldnt make a call either way.

This isnt a court of law, this is a "company tribunal" for want of a better way of looking at it. He has fallen foul of the company policy.. therefore gets punished by the company. Whether it is harsh or not would depend on how the punishments are laid out in the policy I would guess. Sheer weight of numbers is probably in there hence they trawled back through the tweets.

There are people who hold many different views as normal and the opposing view to be offensive. The RFL have decided that they are going to be an inclusive sport and therefore by being non inclusive and holding prejudicial views you would be going against their sports values an therefore breaking the terms of the "social media contract". Its not a personal thing it is what you sign up to. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, they also should be able to be called out on it (both sides) but when you decide to work in an organisation that has "values" that they want everyone to adhere to, and have a policy enforcing those then you either keep to them or you find somewhere to play/work that is more aligned to your values. As a general rule in life I find that tends to work.. If I don't like the values being espoused in a pub I walk out of the pub, if I don't like what the people I am with are saying I don't keep hanging out with them (after challenging it first), if a company I work for acts in a dishonest way or one that goes against my personal values I leave the company.

I dont think that would be unique to this situation as it shows charachter (even if it is back until they were 16) but maybe effecting the size of the ban in terms of "hes always been like this and no one has said anything therefore the acceptability of the comments has not been challenged properly which is our failing as a governing body" and so hence the suspended 5 matches rather than a full 8 game ban giving him the opportunity not to act in that way again.. until we get some detail we really just dont know.

I dont think happy is the way I'd describe my feelings on the situation... not a thing out of Eagles, or the RFL its an utter farce... (to be fair gregson is still employed too, just cant play for the 3 matches). The reason I used Aston was that he has demanded this appeal as he feels (wrongly IMHO) that he is being harshly treated, therefore, if this was similar (content from 2012) you would assume that similar noises would come from Widnes or Gregson himself, and I couldnt remember if Aston was CAS or someone else hence using his example.

If that was all it was then I'd agree. I think it's safest to assume it isn't hence the ban.. they don't tend to pick these things out of the air as they can be challenged not only in the court of public opinion but also on appeal within itself and to CAS (or the equivalent) as shown by Mark Aston

While I get your point the point I'm making is that a strong london can be good for everyone they just need to have the will to get it there to grow the overall package that is sold to broadcasters and sponsors gaining more long term. Hence not seeing beyond the end of their nose.. good businesses can do that, RL clubs seem to not be able to do that.

Spurs fans then

I think the bit in bold is a really good point. The clubs wanted a successful Catalans and so they give them dispensations etc to make it happen (of course we see this being undercut with the daft things they do to them now) but if the rest of super league couldnt give a stuff then they will always be battling against the tide. Sadly i dont think many clubs can see past the nose on their face in terms of what can benefit them from success in London etc I like the world club challenge idea too.

ah ok. I dont remember him to be honest. I spent more time on our club forum that was also on angelfire.

The drummer in Joy Division?

I've mentioned the new take by the NFL, pivoting from NFL Europe and talking about a franchise in London, on a few threads. I also think its interesting that the language in the IMG documents about London is that it is "strategically important" rather than "needing a team" which I think is probably fair.