Dane Chisolm 8 match ban

[Whippet13]

No details of exactly what was said, but an 8 match ban is the outcome:

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/featherstone-rovers-player-dane-chisholm-denies-using-derogatory-slur-after-he-is-hit-with-eight-game-ban-3496138

[Frankie Z]

Deserves 8 Game ban Forwhat he said.

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/exclusive-rugby-league-dane-chisholm-25705179

 

[bigbaldnmad]

Alleged to have said. There were no witnesses to corroborate what was said, just one person's word against another.

Would seem strange as it happened on the touchline.

Chisolm denied the allegations.

[Frankie Z]

The  RFL Were 100% Certain he did say it. Just because he plays for your team doesn't mean every Featherstone player is a Angel, To be honest the Fines handed out to Rovers off and on the field for Various reasons over the past year or so Seem to Paint Rovers in a fairly Negative light.

 

[bigbaldnmad]

Statement released by Featherstone.

Featherstone Rovers can confirm that Dane Chisholm has been subject to an RFL Operational Rules Tribunal regarding an accusation of discriminatory language, which was made by an Oldham RLFC staff member at the game played on 29th August 2021.

Dane strongly denies the accusation. We stand by Dane and are appealing the decision.

Featherstone Rovers have a track record of working with people of all backgrounds, in particular, our work with members of our community with learning difficulties is second to none, these are projects that Dane and other members of the squad have played a key part in. We work closely with our principal partners at Millennium Support to provide opportunities for those with learning difficulties, this is well demonstrated in our LDRL programme of which we’re incredibly proud.

Whilst we work with Dane and legal counsel on the appeal process, we will not be making any further comment at this time.

 

 

[bigbaldnmad]

Just one quote from that article,

And despite there being no evidence to support the allegation, the halfback was found guilty at a tribunal hearing.

[clogdance]

3 hours ago, Whippet13 said:

No details of exactly what was said, but an 8 match ban is the outcome:

https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/featherstone-rovers-player-dane-chisholm-denies-using-derogatory-slur-after-he-is-hit-with-eight-game-ban-3496138

He is alleged to have said to the Oldham Physio "You f***ng sp**tic"

[RS50]

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

[Wellsy4HullFC]

7 hours ago, clogdance said:

He is alleged to have said to the Oldham Physio "You f***ng sp**tic"

I was able to say, given the nature of the press release, the comment was clearly along the lines of being derogatory against those with learning difficulties.

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, RS50 said:

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

He's been through the disciplinary and been found guilty. 

[RS50]

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

He's been through the disciplinary and been found guilty. 

One person's word against another sounds dubious to me. If the person alleging a statement is always assumed to be right, could lead to false allegations.

[Dave T]

26 minutes ago, RS50 said:

One person's word against another sounds dubious to me. If the person alleging a statement is always assumed to be right, could lead to false allegations.

If we take your point to its natural conclusion then it becomes pretty dangerous, as people can do and say whatever they want to people as long as they make sure nobody else is around or within earshot. 

[Impartial Observer]

1 hour ago, RS50 said:

One person's word against another sounds dubious to me. If the person alleging a statement is always assumed to be right, could lead to false allegations.

Who says it is one persons word against another? Fev didn't come out of a discipline hearing very well earlier on this season when it was said that they wouldn't assist in it

[tms]

4 minutes ago, Impartial Observer said:

Who says it is one persons word against another? 

Really IO what don't you understand about 

 despite there being no evidence to support the allegation,

[Dave T]

I think Fev are unwise to make their views known on this. They should keep it professional and let it go through the appeals process. 

Support their employee absolutely, but I'm not sure this line is wise:  We stand by Dane and are appealing the decision

[Curly perm]

1 hour ago, Dave T said:

If we take your point to its natural conclusion then it becomes pretty dangerous, as people can do and say whatever they want to people as long as they make sure nobody else is around or within earshot. 

Agreed and I think that’s the reason it generally isn’t to the extent of ‘proof beyond all reasonable doubt’.

I think they use proof to the reasonable satisfaction of the panel.

[gingerjon]

2 minutes ago, Curly perm said:

Agreed and I think that’s the reason it generally isn’t to the extent of ‘proof beyond all reasonable doubt’.

I think they use proof to the reasonable satisfaction of the panel.

Civil cases are decided "on the balance of probabilities", I believe, so I imagine it's something very similar to that.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

8 games is a lengthy suspension, while not acceptable, it seems verbally abusing someone is punished more heavily than physically assaulting someone nowadays 

[Curly perm]

3 minutes ago, Sir Kevin Sinfield said:

8 games is a lengthy suspension, while not acceptable, it seems verbally abusing someone is punished more heavily than physically assaulting someone nowadays 

It’s not just verbally abusing someone though, is it? 

Physically assaulting + slur would be extremely serious. 

[Moove]

53 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I think Fev are unwise to make their views known on this. They should keep it professional and let it go through the appeals process. 

Support their employee absolutely, but I'm not sure this line is wise:  We stand by Dane and are appealing the decision

At least Vickers left his conspiracy line out of the formal statement...

"The RFL have a preoccupation with our club for some reason. It’s like they don’t want us to get into Super League.”

[Honor James]

2 hours ago, RS50 said:

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Tried in public by kangaroo court had long been wiped out in Britain, until this marshmallow-mouthed generation of teacher's pets took to finding cause to be offended by anything they choose to take exception to and expect the whole world to think them (verbally) injured.

My advice - grow up!

We had a saying when I was was a child, back in Lancashire just after the second world war: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me!"  Worked like a dream, the "offender" felt stupid and sloped off to mind his or her own business.

This hyper-sensitivity to self-defined verbal offence is the product of a generation in this country, coddled (now there's a good old fashioned Lancashire word), coddled as no generation has ever been before.

Tell you what - here's an experiment.  Why don't all of you right now who are reading or have read this thread, and any others who read it later, insult me with all the nasty names you can possibly think of.

I solemnly promise here and now, not to be offended in any way whatsoever, by any of it.

Merry Christmas to you all and a very happy (Covid free, we hope against hope) New Year.

 

[Dave T]

We don't see enough public support for the bigots here nowadays, so it's a refreshing viewpoint. 

[Curly perm]

7 minutes ago, Honor James said:

We had a saying when I was was a child, back in Lancashire just after the second world war: "Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me!"  Worked like a dream, the "offender" felt stupid and sloped off to mind his or her own business

This hyper-sensitivity to self-defined verbal offence is the product of a generation in this country coddled (now there's a good old fashioned Lancashire word), coddled as no generation has ever been before/

Tell you what - here's an experiment.  Why don't all of you right now who are reading or have read this thread, and any others who read it later, insult me with all the nasty names you can possibly think of.

I solemnly promise here and now, not to be offended in any way whatsoever

Unfortunately verbal abuse does hurt people though in many different ways. 

What about if the ‘offender’ is actually a big group of people and the verbal abuse is constant and every day? What if the viewpoint that people with LD are inferior and can be referred to in a derogatory manner is the norm and the discrimination is systemic (i.e. the whole population is the ‘offender’)?

This particular case is tip of the iceberg stuff but it needs to be dealt with to show it’s significance. The ‘marshmallow mouthed generation’ have a lot to sort out.  

[JonM]

1 hour ago, Impartial Observer said:

Who says it is one persons word against another? Fev didn't come out of a discipline hearing very well earlier on this season when it was said that they wouldn't assist in it

Indeed - if it was just one person's word against another (and we don't know that it was) - and one party already has form for not co-operating/ providing actual facts to the same disciplinary group some months earlier, whose word are you going to believe?

[gingerjon]

34 minutes ago, Honor James said:

Why don't all of you right now who are reading or have read this thread, and any others who read it later, insult me with all the nasty names you can possibly think of.

"Someone whose opinions are formed from out of the depths of their unjustified sense of superiority and their wilful and proud ignorance."

That do?