ELBOWSEYE

We've all been around rugby players and ultimately he would have to answer himself. I was just trying to show that guilt is not always so easy to prove in these types of cases. I am running out of the will to carry on in this topic because ultimately we just keep repeating the same answers but in a separate way. That's no slur to your post it's just I seem to answer a similar question but from a different poster. So thanks for the post

Totally agree with that, that's what I was trying to show,is that the system is fallible. It would have been hard on Charnley if the accused was intelligent and had put enough doubt.

Okay no problem.

Running to the teacher.

Just for the sake of debate, if Charnley had not been a witness who could clearly state what happened and was not a good communicator and McGuire had no previous and was an excellent communication witness with a credible kasiano. It could have produced a different verdict even though Charnley was telling the truth. It was that the scenario is not always so simple to sort out.

Not disagreeing with what you state and McGuire is obviously a poor (liar/communicator) with previous this season, but all my posts were not just on this case but the fallibility of the process which can be bypassed with a credible liar and a nervous opposition,this time the recipient was credible and the aggressor was not believable.

2 miles, are most posters on here distant supporters it seems so.

Totally agree sorry double post

Totally agree.

I expect more grown up response of you Dave, you usually give well thought out comments.

In a case (forget Charnley) were one person is against another with no credible evidence a panel will make a decision on the way people answer in cross examination and how that stacks up with the other details but it is not flawless as I explained not everyone is a good communicator.But back to this case McGuire has recent previous which will influence the decision.

Or not as seems normal.

Never stated woke I used that word, I was called ignorant and an idiot, but failing to find is not surprising, again I checked the posts and 4 out of 40 referred to Charnley in the reporting, I to Leigh which I said was poor,the rest of on other areas and answering posters who fail to read posts correctly. But eventually this topic will finish and we can get back to normal.

I didn't like the player report but accepted others see differently. The level of bans compared to serious foul play. The reliability of a balance of probability (or slightly different) decision. How that sits in the outside courts. A lot of posts (which I have explained) were answering when posters used used extreme examples of of something to back up their view and I showed the opposite extreme examples to show things aren't black and white. Like I have also stated I appreciate you make the time to respond even if you disagree with my posts

Again you fail to read posts correctly, I stated that it's some of the issues I wanted and liked actually debating, but it's hard when certain posters don't read or don't want to read posts and in some cases these posts have to be read with a view to seeing the context they were written (possible over numerous back and too posts) but I asked anyone to take that post the wrong way and I didn't have to wait long.

Just for some posters who think I post with an agenda rather open healthy debates. My opinion on Charnley and McGuire, do I believe Charnley answer YES. Do I believe McGuire Answer NO Do I think this throws up lots of other issues that should be discussed Answer YES. Now let someone take that the wrong way.

Are you allowed to have that opinion with being accused of trying to ruin Charnley.

Again Dave you take what you want to take out of a post. I was just showing the elements of doubt in these types of cases. McGuire by the first case is shown to be unreliable but that should not stop discussion on any cases.

I find this part of case interesting, the first case had an independent witness to prove McGuire was guilty, this time it was a basic my word against yours as the witnesses were proved unreliable. I don't think the first case helped McGuire. I have in various capacities been present at 4 civil court cases over rta and injury (no visible damage and no witness or footage) three were straight forward Balance of probability. The fourth was were the defendant was comfortable in a court setting and had been coached by his barrister. He was confident and stuck to his instructions the other was not a confident speaker and nervous .The magistrate/judge found in the defendant way commenting he was a credible witness and he was more believable. But I knew he was not and was just better prepared so it's not always who is telling the truth.

No just read it,but I have read so many items I am struggling to see who's accurate.But as Dave T says that report was incorrect.

That's the trouble you never know what actually happened.

No it was definitely not available option last time.

Just a small thing it's McGuire not Maguire. And I mean by legal representation in regards to an appeal and we're the evidence would hold up in a different legal settings, but I am not a legal expert and will leave it to them.

I think it's probably the tone of some responses to posters who view things differently than the majority

I am not a lawyer so as a punter you would expect the professionals to eventually sort this out. The ball's in McGuire's court, if he.is adamant he is innocent he has to appeal,if he doesn't no matter what he may say he legally labelled an unbelievable witness(I wasn't sure I could use the single word).