Jump to content

Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

He knows what he said is my approach - and all the circumstantial evidence, including him saying nothing and his own club making a big statement on the issue with reference to how nobody will comment further, indicates to me at least that he said something.

I agree that they may be saying nothing to hold out for the case to be dismissed for lack of evidence - that is a cynical but logical position.

In other news, a black actor, who I remember was in Dr Who and has been very popular in many other productions, has been accused of multiple sexual allegations by up to 20 women.

He says he "vehemently" denies all of them.   This had not stopped ITV immediately not showing the last episode of his latest show ( but perversely they will show it on internet !!). And SKY have piped up and stopped production of any of his productions.

Now remind me was it innocent until proven guilty?  If he is telling the truth then he will now have to wait for an age to clear his name but be smeared for fun by all and sundry in the meantime. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 196
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Yes it is racist - dismissing it as not is just as much of a problem as the racism itself

Without picking on specific posters some of the casual racism/ignorance in this thread is pretty depressing. I completely get not wanting to throw Clubb to the wolves without a fair hearing but active

18 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

I'm sure it has, but the level of outrage has recently gone off the scale.

If Elbowseye is correct, and a judge could base his decision on the accuser's reaction, then I could walk up to someone, whisper I love you in their ear, and if the person reacts in a certain way I could lose the case.

That's not how court works at all.

Claimant presents their case and evidence. Defendant does the same. Both parties are cross examined and a judge makes a decision on the likelihood that something happened.

In your imagined scenario, why are you before a judge in a civil hearing?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Tommygilf said:

To be fair though, most of those people who think that are morons. Left wing versions of flat earthers

Who seem to have a hell of a lot of influence in places like Universities and corporations. Not bad for a bunch of morons. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what we can all agree on (I hope?) is that the remark as reported by Savelio was insulting and made reference to his ethnicity or perceived ethnicity.

Savelio has taken offence at the reference to his ethnicity in the insulting alleged remark.

Whether you believe it racist or not racist, the remark (as reported) is a problem because it is insulting and caused offence.

We do not have the right to tell people what they should be and should not offended by, in my view.

Wigan and Hull's joint statement pitched the right tone. We'll allow the RFL to investigate, and if racism is proven, would hope to see an adequate punishment.

Edited by Chris22

Twitter: @TrylineUK
Latest Blog: Looking Back...Great Britain v Australia 2004

Link to post
Share on other sites

Without picking on specific posters some of the casual racism/ignorance in this thread is pretty depressing. I completely get not wanting to throw Clubb to the wolves without a fair hearing but actively arguing that what he allegedly said is acceptable - not for me, and not by a long way.

  • Like 9
  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Chris22 said:

I think what we can all agree on (I hope?) is that the remark as reported by Savelio was insulting and made reference to his ethnicity or perceived ethnicity.

Savelio has taken offence at the reference to his ethnicity in the insulting alleged remark.

Whether you believe it racist or not racist, the remark (as reported) is a problem because it is insulting and caused offence.

We do not have the right to tell people what they should be and should not offended by, in my view.

Wigan and Hull's joint statement pitched the right tone. We'll allow the RFL to investigate, and if racism is proven, would hope to see an adequate punishment.

If it is proven I would be more than happy to agree with your call for an adequate punishment.

What I don’t want to see is a player crucified for something he didn’t do, and until the evidence is in we won’t know either way.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, andyscoot said:

That's not how court works at all.

Claimant presents their case and evidence. Defendant does the same. Both parties are cross examined and a judge makes a decision on the likelihood that something happened.

In your imagined scenario, why are you before a judge in a civil hearing?

I have been accused of the unforgivable crime of being “too nice”.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Without picking on specific posters some of the casual racism/ignorance in this thread is pretty depressing. I completely get not wanting to throw Clubb to the wolves without a fair hearing but actively arguing that what he allegedly said is acceptable - not for me, and not by a long way.

You’re just making stuff up now, rather like your claims about racism/ignorance. Not an unusual tactic from certain quarters. Second post too? you couldn’t even wait and try to pretend to be balanced. 

This is heading for the political board, which I certainly don’t partake in, so might as well call it a draw. 

Edited by Johnoco
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

I have been accused of the unforgivable crime of being “too nice”.

 

Whatever that means, you have nonetheless confirmed it - Crime.

Criminal law is not judged on the same burden of proof, so you can relax. You won't be accused of a crime and be convicted based on a reaction.

The world isn't going mad and it's all going to be okay.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, andyscoot said:

Whatever that means, you have nonetheless confirmed it - Crime.

Criminal law is not judged on the same burden of proof, so you can relax. You won't be accused of a crime and be convicted based on a reaction.

The world isn't going mad and it's all going to be okay.

Thanks.

I also agree that the world isn’t going mad, it already went mad a few years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

You’re just making stuff up now, rather like your claims about racism/ignorance. Not an unusual tactic from certain quarters. Second post too? you couldn’t even wait and try to pretend to be balanced. 

This is heading for the political board, which I certainly don’t partake in, so might as well call it a draw. 

Which quarter would that be then? One which doesn't thinks it's acceptable to refer to someone's heritage as an insult? Guilty as charged.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

I've no idea. If you tell me what your other evidence is, I will judge it on it's merits.

In sort if chronological order.

There was clearly a coming together between the two with some afters, including verbals, the game generally at that point was heated to say the least. That's contextual reference which doesn't make something like the alleged case less likely, quite the opposite in my experience.

Savelio reports it. That in itself is a significant moment as the point of allegation. Its allegedly significant enough for Savelio to want to pause his involvement in the game for.

Clubb does not re-emerge after being substituted closely following the incident. Not even for full time, which is odd.

Savelio releases a statement clarifying his postion publicly. The "why would I make this up" section is particularly compelling as it speaks to the previous unreported occasions Savelio and other Polynesian/Melanesian etc. players had received this sort of abuse but felt unable to report it at the time. On a purely subjective note it sounds believable.

Both Hull and Wigan release statements condemning racism. 

Wigan state no more will be said by them or their players on the matter. That's legal translate for "say nothing therefore say nothing incriminating".

Clubb is suspended by Wigan earlier today.

Clubb still to the best of my knowledge has not responded publicly or released a statement.

Circumstantially, the balance of probability is not in Clubb's favour on that, as I said it sounds believable. I suspect he will be advised to cooperate with the enquiry whilst saying as little as possible to incriminate himself. As Savelio in his own statement acknowledged without video or microphone evidence it will be difficult to prove, I would expect Clubb has been advised similar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

In other news, a black actor, who I remember was in Dr Who and has been very popular in many other productions, has been accused of multiple sexual allegations by up to 20 women.

He says he "vehemently" denies all of them.   This had not stopped ITV immediately not showing the last episode of his latest show ( but perversely they will show it on internet !!). And SKY have piped up and stopped production of any of his productions.

Now remind me was it innocent until proven guilty?  If he is telling the truth then he will now have to wait for an age to clear his name but be smeared for fun by all and sundry in the meantime. 

Why a "black actor"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Circumstantially, the balance of probability is not in Clubb's favour on that, as I said it sounds believable. I suspect he will be advised to cooperate with the enquiry whilst saying as little as possible to incriminate himself. As Savelio in his own statement acknowledged without video or microphone evidence it will be difficult to prove, I would expect Clubb has been advised similar.

Does he need video or sound recording of it. If you watch the Rangers player in a Europa league game when the opposition players cups his hand and speaks to the player so no one else could lip read or hear is comment, the player reacted to his comment. But the player was found guilty regardless of no audio or visual evidence. 

Edited by ELBOWSEYE
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

In sort if chronological order.

There was clearly a coming together between the two with some afters, including verbals, the game generally at that point was heated to say the least. That's contextual reference which doesn't make something like the alleged case less likely, quite the opposite in my experience.

Savelio reports it. That in itself is a significant moment as the point of allegation. Its allegedly significant enough for Savelio to want to pause his involvement in the game for.

Clubb does not re-emerge after being substituted closely following the incident. Not even for full time, which is odd.

Savelio releases a statement clarifying his postion publicly. The "why would I make this up" section is particularly compelling as it speaks to the previous unreported occasions Savelio and other Polynesian/Melanesian etc. players had received this sort of abuse but felt unable to report it at the time. On a purely subjective note it sounds believable.

Both Hull and Wigan release statements condemning racism. 

Wigan state no more will be said by them or their players on the matter. That's legal translate for "say nothing therefore say nothing incriminating".

Clubb is suspended by Wigan earlier today.

Clubb still to the best of my knowledge has not responded publicly or released a statement.

Circumstantially, the balance of probability is not in Clubb's favour on that, as I said it sounds believable. I suspect he will be advised to cooperate with the enquiry whilst saying as little as possible to incriminate himself. As Savelio in his own statement acknowledged without video or microphone evidence it will be difficult to prove, I would expect Clubb has been advised similar.

Sorry, but all that doesn’t prove a damn thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

Thanks.

I also agree that the world isn’t going mad, it already went mad a few years ago.

Always makes me laugh when people say the worlds gone or going mad - its less than 100 years ago that people were put in gas chambers for being Jewish, the world has been much madder than it is now.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Who seem to have a hell of a lot of influence in places like Universities and corporations. Not bad for a bunch of morons. 

I was at one of those unis and genuinely I think its overstated - the loudest obviously make the most noise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Jim Prendle said:

Sorry, but all that doesn’t prove a damn thing.

You're searching for proof which I never proffered, only balance of probability.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Rupert Prince said:

In other news, a black actor, who I remember was in Dr Who and has been very popular in many other productions, has been accused of multiple sexual allegations by up to 20 women.

He says he "vehemently" denies all of them.   This had not stopped ITV immediately not showing the last episode of his latest show ( but perversely they will show it on internet !!). And SKY have piped up and stopped production of any of his productions.

Now remind me was it innocent until proven guilty?  If he is telling the truth then he will now have to wait for an age to clear his name but be smeared for fun by all and sundry in the meantime. 

I agree that is a problem with modern society. 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Englebert said:

Which quarter would that be then? One which doesn't thinks it's acceptable to refer to someone's heritage as an insult? Guilty as charged.

The Latin Quarter of course. And well done.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Does he need video or sound recording of it. If you watch the Rangers player in a Europa league game when the opposition players cups his hand and speaks to the player so no one else could lip read or hear is comment, the player reacted to his comment. But the player was found guilty regardless of no audio or visual evidence. 

Was he? 

Submissions were sent in by Rangers which included eye witness accounts which heard what was said and based solely on watching the video there definitely was something not very pleasant said 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

I was at one of those unis and genuinely I think its overstated - the loudest obviously make the most noise.

It’s grown considerably in the last few years and especially in the last 12 months.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...