Wolves sign Josh McGuire

[Red Willow]

If the charge was not proven then it would be assumed Charnley made it up.

Reading the notes it seems clear he said something and "rat" seems unlikely. If he had made it a little more colourful in language maybe he would have been more credible 

[Dave T]

It is clear that they do not believe a word Mcguire says. They found him to be a liar earlier this year and didn't believe him this time. 

He appears to talk a good one in interviews etc. but his actions don't really match with his words. 

[JohnM]

3 hours ago, DemonUK said:

It is against the law to discriminate against anyone because of:

• age
• gender reassignment
• being married or in a civil partnership
• being pregnant or on maternity leave
• disability
• race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin
• religion or belief
• sex
• sexual orientation

So if he has said what he is alleged to have said (haven't seen anything official) then I would have to disagree that he has only broken a Rugby League Code of Conduct

Equality Act 2010

Is it not covered by the 1986 act? 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/verbal-abuse-and-harassment-public

[LeeF]

21 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Warrington's legal person saying "the outcome would have an impact on the reputation of both players that were involved" is interesting. How does it impact on the reputation of Charnley if he reports unacceptable language to a match official? He's a "tell tale" or something else from the school yard?

Your last sentence is what he was implying and is similar to some comments in earlier posts on this thread

[LeeF]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It is clear that they do not believe a word Mcguire says. They found him to be a liar earlier this year and didn't believe him this time. 

He appears to talk a good one in interviews etc. but his actions don't really match with his words. 

Yes it’s the second time this year that an independent High Court Judge has found him to basically be a liar or an unreliable witness. That’s pretty damining

[ELBOWSEYE]

2 hours ago, LeytherRob said:

Pretty much all of your criticism has been aimed at Leigh and specifically Charnley for reporting what Maguire has said, rather than Maguire himself so i don't think it's unreasonable for anyone to assume you to have some level of support to Maguire.

Just for your benefit Rob, this is my 35th post (way too many)

One implying Leigh (not the best)

Four naming or implying charnley over way it was reported.

None supporting McGuire

Most were answering side issues used by posters (not directly concerning incident) and posts explaining my response to them.

Several complaining about the RFL discipline system when judging serious foul play and abusive language.

But most posters think I am all okay with McGuire abusing Charnley, I think McGuire is an idiot and have no sympathy with him. I just would have dealt with it as a person differently but that's probably due to my age and never reporting anything to authorities. Society deals with things differently now.

[Gavin Harrison]

5 hours ago, RP London said:

If we're talking long lasting psychological issues rather than a spontaneous act then lets stop the cycle.. lets take away yet another moment that helps that spiral into mental anguish and torment. That is a good thing.. we should not be prepared to have one single moment where we dont try and stop this, on the terraces or on the pitches. One moment is too many, one MORE moment is worse... how much is this a one off and how much is this yet another thing that they hear, not just the person it is aimed at but others in their situation affected by this sort of language. There is often the "last straw" for mental health and suicides too, by breaking that cycle maybe you are removing that moment too.

and as I have continually stressed I dont compare the two when looking at punishments as I think that is far too simplistic an approach and the way to tackle them and to deal with them are different.. I'm not the one who compares them.. but I also dont think the "hurty words" argument is either useful or clever on a subject where this, more often than not, is not an isolated incident and where "role models" really do need to stand up to help stop something that can have terrible consequences, someone has to stop the cycle and the RFL have said its them and its now.. and that should be applauded not lambasted.. 

The biggest bowl of word salad so far on the thread. And you've tossed up quite a few.

Convicted felon? Tells me all I need to know. 

[RS]

22 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Just for your benefit Rob, this is my 35th post (way too many)

One implying Leigh (not the best)

Four naming or implying charnley over way it was reported.

None supporting McGuire

Most were answering side issues used by posters (not directly concerning incident) and posts explaining my response to them.

Several complaining about the RFL discipline system when judging serious foul play and abusive language.

But most posters think I am all okay with McGuire abusing Charnley, I think McGuire is an idiot and have no sympathy with him. I just would have dealt with it as a person differently but that's probably due to my age and never reporting anything to authorities. Society deals with things differently now.

Thank goodness they do 

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Just Browny said:

Case notes. 

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance/rules-and-regulations/disciplinary/disciplinary-case?case=17385

I found this part interesting. 

"The Tribunal concluded that the accounts of Mr Philbin and Mr Kasiano added nothing to the issue. They were a considerable distance away (5 and 10 metres) when the offending words were said. Mr Kasiano belatedly said that he heard the word “rat” used by Mr McGuire. His evidence on this was inconsistent with earlier evidence he had given and in the view of the Tribunal was contrived."

Edited June 7, 2023 by Dunbar

[ELBOWSEYE]

6 minutes ago, RS said:

Thank goodness they do 

You will get old one day.

[StandOffHalf]

JM was cross-examined by both Mr Wild (RFL Compliance Manager) and RC. He informed the Tribunal that he had no knowledge about Mr Charnley or his family and that the words he was alleged to have used would not be something he would say. He did not know why he had been accused.

He added that it had been an aggressive game and as he completed the tackle on Mr Charnley, he did call him a “rat” due to a previous incident in a pre-season game between the two sides.

So, basically, they are believing Charnley. Interesting, and pretty much what I expected.

[Jughead]

Makes for pretty grim reading, those notes. Either way, I’m glad it’s been sorted quickly and the ban handed out, based on the evidence, is strong as that kind of behaviour should come with a hefty ban. 

[StandOffHalf]

ultimately the Tribunal found Mr Charnley to be an impressive and credible witnesses.

On the contrary, Mr McGuire was not. He was therefore guilty of the offence.

Who wrote this mess of a report?

[Gavin Harrison]

21 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Just for your benefit Rob, this is my 35th post (way too many)

One implying Leigh (not the best)

Four naming or implying charnley over way it was reported.

None supporting McGuire

Most were answering side issues used by posters (not directly concerning incident) and posts explaining my response to them.

Several complaining about the RFL discipline system when judging serious foul play and abusive language.

But most posters think I am all okay with McGuire abusing Charnley, I think McGuire is an idiot and have no sympathy with him. I just would have dealt with it as a person differently but that's probably due to my age and never reporting anything to authorities. Society deals with things differently now.

You've committed the cardinal sin of being able to stand back, think for yourself & offer a 'non conformist' view.

You have not complied with groupthink.

That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.

[ELBOWSEYE]

7 minutes ago, Gavin Harrison said:

You've committed the cardinal sin of being able to stand back, think for yourself & offer a 'non conformist' view.

You have not complied with groupthink.

That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.

I suppose if I want to be popular I should have a good hard look at myself.

[Gavin Harrison]

1 hour ago, Red Willow said:

If the charge was not proven then it would be assumed Charnley made it up.

Reading the notes it seems clear he said something and "rat" seems unlikely. If he had made it a little more colourful in language maybe he would have been more credible 

The touchjudge in the Leeds game that saw a punch thrown...

Did anyone other than Charnley actually hear anything at all? 

Any audio or video to support what McGuire was accused of?

[ELBOWSEYE]

3 minutes ago, Gavin Harrison said:

The touchjudge in the Leeds game that saw a punch thrown...

Did anyone other than Charnley actually hear anything at all? 

Any audio or video to support what McGuire was accused of?

It clearly states Thier is no actual recording or credible witnesses outside of the two parties but basically used the view that Charnley was more credible and believable than McGuire is was basically the opposite. That may well be true but I wonder in any other sport or court settings would that be good enough to provide a guilty verdict. That's not to say Charnley is not telling the truth just from a legal point of view.

[Gavin Harrison]

2 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I suppose if I want to be popular I should have a good hard look at myself.

There's popularity.

Then there is wisdom. And independent thinking. And critical thinking. And objectivity. And a bigger picture.

Why is your avatar not a Pride flag? You must be a bigot.

[StandOffHalf]

That farcical and ill-thought-out report leaves more questions than answers.

They still haven't said what word they found him guilty of using.

[Dunbar]

1 hour ago, Gavin Harrison said:

You've committed the cardinal sin of being able to stand back, think for yourself & offer a 'non conformist' view.

You have not complied with groupthink.

That piece of halibut was good enough for Jehovah.

Over the last several years, I have probably disagreed with the majority of people on this thread (in a good natured way of course).

If multiple people come to the same conclusion and offer up the same opinion, it can in fact be something other than 'groupthink'.

Edited June 7, 2023 by Dunbar

[Tommygilf]

29 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

ultimately the Tribunal found Mr Charnley to be an impressive and credible witnesses.

On the contrary, Mr McGuire was not. He was therefore guilty of the offence.

Who wrote this mess of a report?

Its not an brilliant write up, but its clear:

"The Tribunal reminded itself of the burden of proof. The RFL must prove the case and whilst the Tribunal acknowledged that the standard of proof should be somewhere between the balance of probabilities and beyond reasonable doubt, the Tribunal concluded that bearing in mind the seriousness of the allegation, the Tribunal would only find the case proved if they reached a high standard approximate to beyond reasonable doubt. Nothing less would do."

[Tommygilf]

1 hour ago, JohnM said:

Is it not covered by the 1986 act? 

https://www.cps.gov.uk/crime-info/verbal-abuse-and-harassment-public

Section 5, if not 4A yes - though the disability hate would be an informal aggravating factor rather than a specified aggravating factor.

[Gavin Harrison]

44 minutes ago, RS said:

Thank goodness they do 

Epitomises the problem here. 

[Gavin Harrison]

10 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Over the last several years, I have probably disagreed with the majority of people on this thread (in a good natured way of course).

If multiple come to the same conclusion and offer up the same opinion, it can in fact be something other than 'groupthink'.

Read the contributions. Read the reactions to those who do not immediately comply. Groupthink.

 

[Tommygilf]

12 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

It clearly states Thier is no actual recording or credible witnesses outside of the two parties but basically used the view that Charnley was more credible and believable than McGuire is was basically the opposite. That may well be true but I wonder in any other sport or court settings would that be good enough to provide a guilty verdict. That's not to say Charnley is not telling the truth just from a legal point of view.

If you have two pieces of evidence, one that matches what you can see on video review, and one that has changed from previous accounts given, and "feels contrived", then you can, legally speaking, dismiss the latter as nonsense.

All cases of presenting evidence are about proving credibility. Charnley did, it seems he was authentic and came across that way. McGuire came across as a liar - which is why most defence lawyers advise no comment responses because you only make yourself look worse and less believable when you are lying.