Jump to content

Dane Chisolm 8 match ban


Recommended Posts

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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. 

There's the rub and Where's the safeguards here? If a player genuinely did not say what is alleged to have said and gets 8 matches on the back of it.

What if a game involves two perspective play off teams and one player makes an unsubstantiated accusation of a similar comment and is banned from the play offs.

The reported comments of Dane's case (again, I really wish this was a player not associated with fev so I could distance myself from an accusation of bias), suggest that no other evidence was presented. So gingerjon is quite correct, a balance of probability is applied.

Given Dane's work with the LD community, I'm really struggling with this one.

It's murky indeed. 

A balance has to be applied in cases where there is no other evidence beyond a single complainant. I've not (as yet) given a lot of thought to how or what that balance would look like.

The word alleged is awful. I hate it and always jump on those who use it. I genuinely can't see Dane saying that. But I wasn't next to him when he was alleged to have said it.

Under the mental deficiency act (1913) people with a learning disability were classified as "idiots" at the high functioning end, feeble minded as mild-mod Ld and "imbeciles" at the low functioning end.

I routinely call a good pal of mine an f'in idiot. He says he's going to report me to the NMC!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


40 minutes ago, Dave T said:

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. 

We end up with a situation like the Jussie Smollet case. Whereby people make up fake attacks but are instantly believed because they are 'a victim'.

It's possibly better to exercise caution and see what the evidence presents, or is that ridiculously old fashioned? 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

We end up with a situation like the Jussie Smollet case. Whereby people make up fake attacks but are instantly believed because they are 'a victim'.

It's possibly better to exercise caution and see what the evidence presents, or is that ridiculously old fashioned? 

What makes you think that hasn't happened here, I still haven't seen an official explanation from the RFL on this ban that explains their decision. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, dkw said:

What makes you think that hasn't happened here, I still haven't seen an official explanation from the RFL on this ban that explains their decision. 

I've seen a report stating there was no other evidence. It's like the Flanagan on Bussey case. He got a huge ban with no other corroboration where Bussey was believed based on (I think) Flanagan's back sheet.

I'm very much struggling with this process where the complainant [appears to] be believed more than the defendant.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Impartial Observer said:

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

From memory (and there are no live cases currently under review to test my logic), hearing notes usually go on the disciplinary page fairly quickly after a hearing. Any subsequent appeal is usually added following the second hearing. 

I'll stand corrected if that's not the case. 

Please view my photos.

 

http://www.hughesphoto.co.uk/

 

Little Nook Farm - Caravan Club Certificated Location in the heart of the Pennines overlooking Hebden Bridge and the Calder Valley.

http://www.facebook.com/LittleNookFarm

 

Little Nook Cottage - 2-bed self-catering cottage in the heart of the Pennines overlooking Hebden Bridge and the Calder Valley.

Book now via airbnb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, dkw said:

What makes you think that hasn't happened here, I still haven't seen an official explanation from the RFL on this ban that explains their decision. 

I've no idea what happened here in reality. I'm saying nothing other than the point has been raised that we should automatically believe any accusations anybody makes against another person. I think this is the murky path, not the other way. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

I've seen a report stating there was no other evidence. It's like the Flanagan on Bussey case. He got a huge ban with no other corroboration where Bussey was believed based on (I think) Flanagan's back sheet.

I'm very much struggling with this process where the complainant [appears to] be believed more than the defendant.

Is there an official statement from the RFL regarding that? The only place I can see that says there was no other evidence is in the media.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, dkw said:

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.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 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.

Certainly the case in the other code. It really surprised me when I saw a women's game just how verbally vicious they could be to each other compared to the men's game.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

  • Like 3

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

We end up with a situation like the Jussie Smollet case. Whereby people make up fake attacks but are instantly believed because they are 'a victim'.

It's possibly better to exercise caution and see what the evidence presents, or is that ridiculously old fashioned? 

There is always a risk of dishonesty, but the choice here is that you believe the accuser or you believe the accused in a 1 v 1 debate. 

I don't understand your last para. Nobody has judged anyone without the presented evidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

I don't think the hearing notes are on yet. 

So currently we have the claim of there being no evidence entirely from the player/team involved. We need to see the RFL`s reasoning behind the ban before we can substantiate that claim.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

There is always a risk of dishonesty, but the choice here is that you believe the accuser or you believe the accused in a 1 v 1 debate. 

And that's the bit I'm towing with.

There is a risk of an offence being unpunished, or someone getting a long ban for something he didn't do.

Where it is a 1 v 1 if you're not taking a "beyond all reasonable doubt" approach, then there has to be a balance and a possibility of sine die if someone is proven to have made a malicious allegation 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

And that's the bit I'm towing with.

There is a risk of an offence being unpunished, or someone getting a long ban for something he didn't do.

Where it is a 1 v 1 if you're not taking a "beyond all reasonable doubt" approach, then there has to be a balance and a possibility of sine die if someone is proven to have made a malicious allegation 

I do also think we need to be careful that we don't go the other way and give malicious allegations undue prominence here. 

If we go too far that way then we end up with all sorts of horrific things happening as history has shown when we don't believe victims. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

There is always a risk of dishonesty, but the choice here is that you believe the accuser or you believe the accused in a 1 v 1 debate. 

I don't understand your last para. Nobody has judged anyone without the presented evidence. 

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. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Dave T said:

I do also think we need to be careful that we don't go the other way and give malicious allegations undue prominence here. 

If we go too far that way then we end up with all sorts of horrific things happening as history has shown when we don't believe victims. 

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

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 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. 

I called him guilty because he has been found guilty. 

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

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I do also think we need to be careful that we don't go the other way and give malicious allegations undue prominence here. 

If we go too far that way then we end up with all sorts of horrific things happening as history has shown when we don't believe victims. 

The sport has an example within itself. George Riley was tried by the newspapers, cast asunder from the BBC, over allegations made, but welcomed back in to work for the RFL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • ckn locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...