Dane Chisolm 8 match ban

[dkw]

2 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

Please see my earlier reply Dave

Ok, I understand why you feel the need to pull away from this. If its worth anything I think you conducted yourself very well in this thread considering your connection to the player, situation etc. 

[Dave T]

11 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

Oh agreed 100%. That's why I'm advocating balance. I'm not sure what balance looks like though.

I'm torn here. As stated earlier, I'm passionate about an aspect of my life that involves the LD community. I ###### loathe such comments as is alleged.

However, I'm also an advocate of fair justice and hate to see miscarriages of that process.

Given my knowledge of Dane and his voluntary work, I'm towing with this one.

Perhaps I should withdraw from this discussion as I have too many conflicting interests here

 I do understand your points, and I don't know Dane at all, but I'm not surprised that somebody may use an offensive word despite respecting the groups linked to the slur. 

Edit: not exactly the same, but see Steve Price using the word m*** live on sky sports. 

[Robin Evans]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

I understand your points, and I don't know Dane at all, but I'm not surprised that somebody may use an offensive word despite respecting the groups linked to the slur. 

Aye... he wouldn't be the first. But in Dane's case I am surprised.... hence my reaction.

I am constantly feeling like I'm trying to justify my comments here.... not necessarily to yourself... im not leaping to his defence cos he's at fev. This is more to do with my association with the LD community. 

[Robin Evans]

Reight .... I'm out.

[Dave T]

Just now, Robin Evans said:

Aye... he wouldn't be the first. But in Dane's case I am surprised.... hence my reaction.

I am constantly feeling like I'm trying to justify my comments here.... not necessarily to yourself... im not leaping to his defence cos he's at fev. This is more to do with my association with the LD community. 

Understood. See my late edit regarding Steve Price using an offensive slur last season. Apparently he is a top bloke. 

[RigbyLuger]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Understood. See my late edit regarding Steve Price using an offensive slur last season. Apparently he is a top bloke. 

Convicted criminal Ben Cockayne has been called the same. 

[RP London]

57 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I asked where the line is drawn. When I say Ive heard worse thats in both male and female games FWIW in fact the womens game can be more vicious for insults from what I have seen.

I will condemn the use of this word and any other use of something that should not be used negatively as a negative (if you know what I mean, like using Gay as a derogatory term). There is the line for me.. there are plenty of ways to insult people (if you really must) without using such terms.  

However, I also think there is a line between what is said to another player in the "heat of battle" and how that is treated and saying it to the physio. I don't know the incident but I'd assume it was an accident and not done with either malice or force so all seems a bit far and harsh.

I'd say the ban possibly reflects that. 

[Honor James]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

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.. 

Oh, absolutely not.  I may have grown up tough (because that was necessary) but I am very glad to say that my two daughters didn't have to, and we should certainly try to help children who are doing it tough - if we know for sure they are and we can help in any way that isn't just poking our noses in with our own opinions on child rearing.

There are many different ways of bringing up children that are not unkind.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, Honor James said:

Oh, absolutely not.  I may have grown up tough (because that was necessary) but I am very glad to say that my two daughters didn't have to, and we should certainly try to help children who are doing it tough - if we know for sure they are and we can help in any way that isn't just poking our noses in with our own opinions on child rearing.

There are many different ways of bringing up children that are not unkind.

OK, so you appear to be happy that we try and make things better for people. 

Do you agree trying to stop people calling others "f****** sp******" is a positive thing?

I'm not referring to whether you believe this particular player did say that. 

[Martyn Sadler]

56 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

At least we've had an insight into the bullying and harassment policy at LPL.

Perhaps you'd care to enlighten us!

[Honor James]

3 minutes ago, Dave T said:

OK, so you appear to be happy that we try and make things better for people. 

Do you agree trying to stop people calling others "f****** sp******" is a positive thing?

I'm not referring to whether you believe this particular player did say that. 

I don't know what "f****** sp******" stands .....

..... for but it certainly looks like something that probably belonged unsaid, and in my view another old saying we used to use is: "If can't say anything good don't say anything at all".

 

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I called him guilty because he has been found guilty. 

I'm the one respecting process. You are not. 

 

You're respecting a process that finds people guilty without any evidence except hearsay or verbal accusations. 

But you might revise your opinion on it when it turns round and bites you on the arris. You are as liable as anyone else to be accused of something by someone. Let's hope they don't bother with trivial stuff like whether you did it or not and simply believe the accuser. 

 

[Curly perm]

9 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

You've pretty much said he's guilty as the panel found him such. The problem, at least on the face of it, seems to be that there was no one who could actually corroborate the story. 

But why would you automatically believe one or the other in such a scenario? Surely it still stands that one is innocent until proven guilty, or there is at least compelling evidence to indicate otherwise.

I know you won't see it but that's kangaroo court thinking. 

But you don’t know what other factors were taken into consideration. Chisholm may not have presented a great argument, he might’ve claimed to have called him a joystick (ridiculous example, but you get my point - we don’t know). 

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

You're respecting a process that finds people guilty without any evidence except hearsay or verbal accusations. 

But you might revise your opinion on it when it turns round and bites you on the arris. You are as liable as anyone else to be accused of something by someone. Let's hope they don't bother with trivial stuff like whether you did it or not and simply believe the accuser. 

 

Could you link to the findings that you have read, you obviously know more than the rest of us?

I have no idea whether he did this. But I do know that we have a disciplinary that often plays down things like this. 

But as things stand it is relevant to describe him as guilty. 

[Dave T]

13 minutes ago, Honor James said:

I don't know what "f****** sp******" stands .....

..... for but it certainly looks like something that probably belonged unsaid, and in my view another old saying we used to use is: "If can't say anything good don't say anything at all".

 

It's rather relevant to the thread and the point that you made at the start. 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Curly perm said:

But you don’t know what other factors were taken into consideration. Chisholm may not have presented a great argument, he might’ve claimed to have called him a joystick (ridiculous example, but you get my point - we don’t know). 

I don't know, which is why I aren't offering an opinion on whether he is guilty or innocent. That's why I said there doesn't*seem* to be much evidence to back up the allegations. 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Could you link to the findings that you have read, you obviously know more than the rest of us?

I have no idea whether he did this. But I do know that we have a disciplinary that often plays down things like this. 

But as things stand it is relevant to describe him as guilty. 

Go on then, point out the bit where I expressed an opinion on his guilt or innocence.

In your own time.

[LeeF]

16 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Could you link to the findings that you have read, you obviously know more than the rest of us?

I have no idea whether he did this. But I do know that we have a disciplinary that often plays down things like this. 

But as things stand it is relevant to describe him as guilty. 

Not just relevant but technically accurate to describe him as guilty

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

Go on then, point out the bit where I expressed an opinion on his guilt or innocence.

In your own time.

My post doesn't refer to your view on that. But you state that there was no evidence. That is the claim I'm interested in. 

[Magic XIII]

4 hours ago, Impartial Observer said:

Martin Vickers said it, must be correct then

Did the investigation into the post match drinkathon when COVID regs were in place ever get concluded ?

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

My post doesn't refer to your view on that. But you state that there was no evidence. That is the claim I'm interested in. 

That's your prerogative. But traditionally, trials and sentences have generally relied on evidence. You seem ok with verdicts that back up your own personal opinion, whether true or not but again that's your call. 

I won't point out that I didn't say there definitely was no evidence, only that there didn't seem to be any ON THE FACE OF IT. Because that bit will be ignored. 

 

 

 

[Dave T]

8 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

That's your prerogative. But traditionally, trials and sentences have generally relied on evidence. You seem ok with verdicts that back up your own personal opinion, whether true or not but again that's your call. 

I won't point out that I didn't say there definitely was no evidence, only that there didn't seem to be any ON THE FACE OF IT. Because that bit will be ignored. 

 

 

 

I'm not sure what you mean by backs up my personal opinion. 

All we know about this is that he has gone through an RFL investigation and they have found him guilty. 

We have no idea of the presence or lack of evidence. If the verdict is published, then we may know more. 

[RigbyLuger]

Hopefully his published defence is better than his team mates Ben Blackmore's was.

[JohnM]

7 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.

 

You ...

You....

You ...journalist!!!!

[Fevrover]

9 hours ago, RS50 said:

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

NO chance on here.