Dane Chisolm 8 match ban

[The Blues Ox]

Where is the line drawn on this? There is all sorts of stuff said in the heat of battle, what is the limit on what can be said now? Not defending him saying that, its just that its a very physical game, emotions run high, and things get said. He probably did say it but its also pretty low down the list of things that you will hear on a rugby field. 

[Big Picture]

42 minutes ago, Honor James said:

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.

 

You've hit the nail right on the head there, as psychology professor Jonathan Haidt explains here:

 

[RigbyLuger]

I thought "s******" was an insult left in the playgrounds of the 80s when we knew no better.

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

I thought "s******" was an insult left in the playgrounds of the 80s when we knew no better.

It's absolutely vile and has no place in an inclusive game that features PDRL and LDRL.

[Sir Kevin Sinfield]

23 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

I thought "s******" was an insult left in the playgrounds of the 80s when we knew no better.

He’s Australian remember, socially they are way back in the 80’s still 

[RP London]

1 hour ago, Honor James said:

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.

 

I am amazed at that post I really am. While I accept that offence is taken far too easily by many and that offence is taken far too much on someone else's behalf the idea that "words will never hurt you" is utter tripe and always has been. 

Bullies use words all the time and they very much hurt others.

Many things start with words but grow to be much worse and if only we stopped them at words the rest may never appear. 

Talk to parents of kids that have committed suicide due to the words that were spoken to them for years and years and tell them that their kids should just say "words will never hurt me" and see where that gets you.. 

Words do hurt, they can hurt more than physical violence. Whatever the facts are in this case whatever was or wasn't said and whatever your feelings on this particular case your post is wrong with its generalisation of verbal bullying and verbal offense as being nothing and that all you have to do is use some ridiculous phrase and it will all be ok. 

 

[RP London]

2 hours ago, POR said:

Really IO what don't you understand about 

 despite there being no evidence to support the allegation,

where is that quote, i've read the Yorkshire Post articles and cannot see that quote in it. 

13 hours ago, bigbaldnmad said:

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.

 

 

that sounds very similar to the defence of someone who has made a racist remark saying "but ive got black friends".. 

whether he said it or not I dont know but the defence of "but he does all this work" does not mean he didnt say it, it means he should know better than say it yes but that doesnt mean he didnt.

[tms]

2 minutes ago, RP London said:

where is that quote, i've read the Yorkshire Post articles and cannot see that quote in it. 

 

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

[Honor James]

49 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

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

That do?

Perfect 

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, POR said:

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

ah ok so its the quote of the club's chief exec.. I assumed that it was a neutral party hence it being used to defend that.. fair enough just wanted to be clear. 

[David Shepherd]

4 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Imagine being as disgusting a person as you are and not being aware of it.

My bothered-o-meter is really struggling to register.

[dkw]

2 hours ago, Honor James said:

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.

 

Absolute idiocy of the highest order, what a moronic take.

[Simon Hall]

1 hour ago, Honor James said:

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.

 

Yer Da sells Avon

[Impartial Observer]

2 hours ago, POR said:

Really IO what don't you understand about 

 despite there being no evidence to support the allegation,

Martin Vickers said it, must be correct then

[dkw]

1 hour ago, The Blues Ox said:

Where is the line drawn on this? There is all sorts of stuff said in the heat of battle, what is the limit on what can be said now? Not defending him saying that, its just that its a very physical game, emotions run high, and things get said. He probably did say it but its also pretty low down the list of things that you will hear on a rugby field. 

Your right, so racism, sexism, basically anything goes as long as you use the excuse "it was in the heat of the battle. 

Maybe next you can use the "boys will be boys defence" should you need it in a court of law.

[Dave T]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

<snip> While I accept that offence is taken far too easily by many and that offence is taken far too much on someone else's behalf <snip> 

 

Whilst we are on the same page on this general discussion - I do have to challenge on this one point mate.

I find this line rolled out too often and undermines the rest of your argument, so I don't like to see this used, certainly not by people with your views on this, often as some kind of conciliatory point to lower tensions when debating with bigots.

I don't think people do get offended on other people's behalf at all. People get offended by what they get offended by - and it doesn;t have to be a direct slur aimed at them for them to find it shocking and offensive. But also, in many cases, people are not complaining or challenging behaviour because they are offended, but because they are disgusted and find it wrong and are challenging that. 

Me being an ally of victimised groups is not being offended on their behalf, it is standing up for what I believe is right. 

'Being offended on behalf of other people' is a right-wing argument used to dismiss their views being challenged - and that shouldn't be used casually as it fuels their viewpoint.

[gazza77]

Anyone any idea why there is no reference to the case on the rfl disciplinary page (or any other page on the rfl site)? 

[Robin Evans]

5 hours ago, Dave T said:

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

Yep. Agrees.

Most folk on here know the job I do and take the use of that term very seriously. If he said it then he deserves all that's coming to him. I wish he was a player of another club then I could comment on the case free from the association of bias towards a fev player.

But the whole process that a single complainant can make an accusation without any corroborative evidence and get the said player an 8 match ban really does not sit comfortable with me.

Dane works with LD rugby and spends a good deal of his own time working with that community. He vehemently denies the comment.

Based on this case, any player can now make a similar accusation against any player without further evidence resulting in the player getting the same ban. 

There has to be more than just "he called me a #######", otherwise the judicial process is compromised.

[RP London]

33 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Whilst we are on the same page on this general discussion - I do have to challenge on this one point mate.

I find this line rolled out too often and undermines the rest of your argument, so I don't like to see this used, certainly not by people with your views on this, often as some kind of conciliatory point to lower tensions when debating with bigots.

I don't think people do get offended on other people's behalf at all. People get offended by what they get offended by - and it doesn;t have to be a direct slur aimed at them for them to find it shocking and offensive. But also, in many cases, people are not complaining or challenging behaviour because they are offended, but because they are disgusted and find it wrong and are challenging that. 

Me being an ally of victimised groups is not being offended on their behalf, it is standing up for what I believe is right. 

'Being offended on behalf of other people' is a right-wing argument used to dismiss their views being challenged - and that shouldn't be used casually as it fuels their viewpoint.

To be fair your first paragraph sums up why it is there really and i wrote the post, took a breath, walked away and made a drink then came back (just to make sure i was happy to post it) and added that before posting pretty much for your reason.. I agree with your post completely

[Wakefield Ram]

8 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

Yep. Agrees.

Most folk on here know the job I do and take the use of that term very seriously. If he said it then he deserves all that's coming to him. I wish he was a player of another club then I could comment on the case free from the association of bias towards a fev player.

But the whole process that a single complainant can make an accusation without any corroborative evidence and get the said player an 8 match ban really does not sit comfortable with me.

Dane works with LD rugby and spends a good deal of his own time working with that community. He vehemently denies the comment.

Based on this case, any player can now make a similar accusation against any player without further evidence resulting in the player getting the same ban. 

There has to be more than just "he called me a #######", otherwise the judicial process is compromised.

If there was no other evidence other than the complainant, then I'd be very surprised if he didn't win an appeal. If he was on the field of play, it would be surprising if no one else heard anything. 

[Honor James]

1 hour ago, RP London said:

I am amazed at that post I really am. While I accept that offence is taken far too easily by many and that offence is taken far too much on someone else's behalf the idea that "words will never hurt you" is utter tripe and always has been. 

Bullies use words all the time and they very much hurt others.

Many things start with words but grow to be much worse and if only we stopped them at words the rest may never appear. 

Talk to parents of kids that have committed suicide due to the words that were spoken to them for years and years and tell them that their kids should just say "words will never hurt me" and see where that gets you.. 

Words do hurt, they can hurt more than physical violence. Whatever the facts are in this case whatever was or wasn't said and whatever your feelings on this particular case your post is wrong with its generalisation of verbal bullying and verbal offense as being nothing and that all you have to do is use some ridiculous phrase and it will all be ok. 

 

 

Odd then, that I personally (as the smallest child in my class by far and the very least self-confident),  straight out from England just post World War II, aged just turned five, with a Lancashire accent and (I imagine) a very pale face compared to all the suntanned, sturdy, nearly twice as high as me and very tough indeed, mostly Afrikaans kids in my class, who bullied me mercilessly for being a `Rooineck' (red neck - an Afrikaans intentional insult to British people in general who they hated - even the children hated us, as they were taught to do by parents who still hated the British, many deservedly, as members of their own families might have been among those interned by the British (who invented concentration camps) during the Boer war.

I survived it - just - for a whole term, mainly due to my two years older and larger sister's coming regularly to my rescue with small, but very determined fists flying left and right (politicly, I guess, ignored by teachers who, while almost certainly not approving of big kids beating up little ones probably preferred not to take on the possibly violent anger of an Afrikaans parent or parents).

Believe me, if had been given the option at the time of being regularly called a "blerry rooineck" right through break-time every day, from an impolite but physically more apparently safe distance, I would have jumped at the chance ........ and thought myself "blerry lucky".

My parents moved us to a different school the following term, further away from home but attended by less verbally belligerent children. And at the beginning of the following year we left Johannesburg and went to live in the (almost still primitive) British colony called Rhodesia, where children were pretty much like the children at our little old, walled, local (Chisholme) school back in Bury, Lancashire, England. 

We wrote on a slate, with chalk of some kind, and bought sherbet with a liquorice stick at break-time from a little sweet-shop across the road.

Those were the days!

[Dave T]

3 minutes ago, RP London said:

To be fair your first paragraph sums up why it is there really and i wrote the post, took a breath, walked away and made a drink then came back (just to make sure i was happy to post it) and added that before posting pretty much for your reason.. I agree with your post completely

Yes, I understood why it was there mate, I think your post was spot on without it. 

[Dave T]

17 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

Yep. Agrees.

Most folk on here know the job I do and take the use of that term very seriously. If he said it then he deserves all that's coming to him. I wish he was a player of another club then I could comment on the case free from the association of bias towards a fev player.

But the whole process that a single complainant can make an accusation without any corroborative evidence and get the said player an 8 match ban really does not sit comfortable with me.

Dane works with LD rugby and spends a good deal of his own time working with that community. He vehemently denies the comment.

Based on this case, any player can now make a similar accusation against any player without further evidence resulting in the player getting the same ban. 

There has to be more than just "he called me a #######", otherwise the judicial process is compromised.

What is the solution though? And obviously we don't know how the panel came to their verdict. 

It is a tricky situation, but it does lead us down a mirky road if we don't believe victims in one on one incidents. I'm thinking of more serious situations than this one. 

[RP London]

13 minutes ago, Honor James said:

 

Odd then, that I personally (as the smallest child in my class by far and the very least self-confident),  straight out from England just post World War II, aged just turned five, with a Lancashire accent and (I imagine) a very pale face compared to all the suntanned, sturdy, nearly twice as high as me and very tough indeed, mostly Afrikaans kids in my class, who bullied me mercilessly for being a `Rooineck' (red neck - an Afrikaans intentional insult to British people in general who they hated - even the children hated us, as they were taught to do by parents who still hated the British, many deservedly, as members of their own families might have been among those interned by the British (who invented concentration camps) during the Boer war.

I survived it - just - for a whole term, mainly due to my two years older and larger sister's coming regularly to my rescue with small, but very determined fists flying left and right (politicly, I guess, ignored by teachers who, while almost certainly not approving of big kids beating up little ones probably preferred not to take on the possibly violent anger of an Afrikaans parent or parents).

Believe me, if had been given the option at the time of being regularly called a "blerry rooineck" right through break-time every day, from an impolite but physically more apparently safe distance, I would have jumped at the chance ........ and thought myself "blerry lucky".

My parents moved us to a different school the following term, further away from home but attended by less verbally belligerent children. And at the beginning of the following year we left Johannesburg and went to live in the (almost still primitive) British colony called Rhodesia, where children were pretty much like the children at our little old, walled, local (Chisholme) school back in Bury, Lancashire, England. 

We wrote on a slate, with chalk of some kind, and bought sherbet with a liquorice stick at break-time from a little sweet-shop across the road.

Those were the days!

Well if only everyone was like you... sadly some arent and the basis of being a human being is to look after those that are in a worse state or have a harder time.. 

not everyone comes out of stories like yours well, some dont come out alive.. i dont think it is wrong for us to try and help those rather than just expect them to help themselves.. 

[Impartial Observer]

48 minutes ago, gazza77 said:

Anyone any idea why there is no reference to the case on the rfl disciplinary page (or any other page on the rfl site)? 

I assume they are waiting for the case to be finalised which will be after the appeal if there is one