Jump to content

Wolves sign Josh McGuire


Recommended Posts

5 minutes ago, RP London said:

Oh indeed, I see that, my thing about "Burden of Proof" is where is the line that it tips over.

With the notes not being great it also makes me wonder if there is more for example while it talks about "you can see the mouth moving" do they have angles that show a little more than just the mouth moving ie you can make enough out that what he says he is saying is blatantly not true.. 

I trust a QC plus 2 ex players who know what its like "in the heat of the battle" will come to the correct conclusion on this type of thing, including the fact that "in the heat of the battle" while excusing some things (or at least explaining them) does not excuse this type of thing. I'd just like a little meat on the bones of the notes to be honest. 

I'd have thought that would have been called out if they had things like that in play. 

Tbh, it's clearly a case of believing one person and not believing the other person in the slightest.

I hope we don't, but it's where there could be an appeal, ultimately a different panel could find differently as the evidence is based on opinion to an extent. Indeed, Cramer's plea was that the bar hadn't been reached for burden of proof. 

As has been pointed out, he has been called a liar by two panels this year. That is a real problem. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites


6 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'd have thought that would have been called out if they had things like that in play. 

Tbh, it's clearly a case of believing one person and not believing the other person in the slightest.

I hope we don't, but it's where there could be an appeal, ultimately a different panel could find differently as the evidence is based on opinion to an extent. Indeed, Cramer's plea was that the bar hadn't been reached for burden of proof. 

As has been pointed out, he has been called a liar by two panels this year. That is a real problem. 

interestingly these are 2 paragraphs from the report pre season 

"The Tribunal considered carefully the evidence of Mr McGuire whilst reminding itself that he did not have any burden of proof. In doing so the Tribunal concluded that Mr McGuire was not telling the truth. His account lacked credibility and detail. He generalised and concentrated on making grand statements as to his character rather than focusing upon the events.

Mr McGuire was adamant that he would not say words like that and he described all that he has done in the community. The Tribunal took that very much into account but it was insufficient to create a doubt by undermining the overwhelming evidence against him."

this is a paragraph from the same part of the report from this incident. 

"The Tribunal considered carefully the evidence of Mr McGuire whilst reminding itself that he did not have any burden of proof. In doing so the Tribunal concluded that Mr McGuire was not telling the truth. His account lacked credibility. He concentrated on making statements as to his character and why he would not use the words rather than focusing upon the events."

 

Surely its a case of saying "this is what I actually said" the defence almost sounds like the racist who on accusation of being racist says "but I have black friends".. 

Again, I am sure there is much more to it than the notes but none of it makes good reading (nor does the copy and paste style of the notes to be fair). 

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'd have thought that would have been called out if they had things like that in play. 

Tbh, it's clearly a case of believing one person and not believing the other person in the slightest.

I hope we don't, but it's where there could be an appeal, ultimately a different panel could find differently as the evidence is based on opinion to an extent. Indeed, Cramer's plea was that the bar hadn't been reached for burden of proof. 

As has been pointed out, he has been called a liar by two panels this year. That is a real problem. 

I find this part of case interesting, the first case had an independent witness to prove McGuire was guilty, this time it was a basic my word against yours as the witnesses were proved unreliable. I don't think the first case helped McGuire.

I have in various capacities been present at 4 civil court cases over rta and injury (no visible damage and no witness or footage) three were straight forward Balance of probability.

The fourth was were the defendant was comfortable in a court setting and had been coached by his barrister. He was confident and stuck to his instructions the other was not a confident speaker and nervous .The magistrate/judge found in the defendant way commenting he was a credible witness and he was more believable. But I knew he was not and was just better prepared so it's not always who is telling the truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, ELBOWSEYE said:

I find this part of case interesting, the first case had an independent witness to prove McGuire was guilty, this time it was a basic my word against yours as the witnesses were proved unreliable. I don't think the first case helped McGuire.

I have in various capacities been present at 4 civil court cases over rta and injury (no visible damage and no witness or footage) three were straight forward Balance of probability.

The fourth was were the defendant was comfortable in a court setting and had been coached by his barrister. He was confident and stuck to his instructions the other was not a confident speaker and nervous .The magistrate/judge found in the defendant way commenting he was a credible witness and he was more believable. But I knew he was not and was just better prepared so it's not always who is telling the truth.

I'm not sure why you keep trying to throw doubt around Charnley's testimony and actions. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I'm not sure why you keep trying to throw doubt around Charnley's testimony and actions. 

Again Dave you take what you want to take out of a post. I was just showing the elements of doubt in these types of cases.

McGuire by the first case is shown to be unreliable but that should not stop discussion on any cases.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And, as ever, it should be clearly understood that 'beyond reasonable doubt' does not mean the same as 'beyond all doubt'.

  • Like 3

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, gingerjon said:

And, as ever, it should be clearly understood that 'beyond reasonable doubt' does not mean the same as 'beyond all doubt'.

Are you allowed to have that opinion with being accused of trying to ruin Charnley.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Indeed. Of all the things to rely on, I think Josh Mcguire was badly advised to go down this route. 

Yeah I think you can pin point that to where it started to go wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just for some posters who think I post with an agenda rather open healthy debates.

My opinion on Charnley and McGuire, do I believe Charnley answer YES.

Do I believe McGuire

Answer NO

Do I think this throws up lots of other issues that should be discussed

Answer YES.

Now let someone take that the wrong way.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Dunbar said:

Kasiano comes out of this very poorly.  

Absolutely he does !

Which professional RL player would go to such extremes by being sledged after a tackle by being told ‘. Oooh, you Rat Josh ! ‘ !

Warrington deciding not to appeal his first ban of 7 matches also didn’t help and all we have seen is a Summary of the notes in order for the viewing public to get their own picture of things. 
 

Lots of potential charges here for the Employer, club into disrepute and the main one is dishonesty. If he isn’t credible as a player, then no doubt he isn’t very credible as a person. Who would really want this type of person in your squad, irrespective of his talents ?

I hope Wire turn it around because they are a better side without McGuire in it !

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Just for some posters who think I post with an agenda rather open healthy debates.

My opinion on Charnley and McGuire, do I believe Charnley answer YES.

Do I believe McGuire

Answer NO

Do I think this throws up lots of other issues that should be discussed

Answer YES.

Now let someone take that the wrong way.

 

If that is the case, why are you on 35+ posts as you mentioned in another reply? If you believe Charnley and don't believe McGuire, why are you so skeptical of the tribunal coming to the exact same conclusion as you whilst hearing a great deal more oral testimony than has been made public in the fairly brief and clearly censored minutes?

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

If that is the case, why are you on 35+ posts as you mentioned in another reply? If you believe Charnley and don't believe McGuire, why are you so skeptical of the tribunal coming to the exact same conclusion as you whilst hearing a great deal more oral testimony than has been made public in the fairly brief and clearly censored minutes?

Again you fail to read posts correctly, I stated that it's some of the issues I wanted and liked actually debating, but it's hard when certain posters don't read or don't want to read posts and in some cases these posts have to be read with a view to seeing the context they were written (possible over numerous back and too posts) but I asked anyone to take that post the wrong way and I didn't have to wait long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Just for some posters who think I post with an agenda rather open healthy debates.

My opinion on Charnley and McGuire, do I believe Charnley answer YES.

Do I believe McGuire

Answer NO

Do I think this throws up lots of other issues that should be discussed

Answer YES.

Now let someone take that the wrong way.

 

What are the issues to discuss?

I vaguely recall with you taking issue with how this was reported, i.e. by a player and not a ref. Personally, I would absolutely back a player's right to report something if a line has been crossed, which appears to have done here.

One the one player's word vs another. That may be the case. But the whole point of referring this to a tribunal is to apply scrutiny to both players' word. One stood up to it, while another appeared to be full of holes.

There is a message here, that you can't just whisper some abuse in someone's ear in the hope of getting away with it because the officials didn't hear it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, phiggins said:

What are the issues to discuss?

I vaguely recall with you taking issue with how this was reported, i.e. by a player and not a ref. Personally, I would absolutely back a player's right to report something if a line has been crossed, which appears to have done here.

One the one player's word vs another. That may be the case. But the whole point of referring this to a tribunal is to apply scrutiny to both players' word. One stood up to it, while another appeared to be full of holes.

There is a message here, that you can't just whisper some abuse in someone's ear in the hope of getting away with it because the officials didn't hear it.

I didn't like the player report but accepted others see differently.

The level of bans compared to serious foul play.

The reliability of a balance of probability (or slightly different) decision.

How that sits in the outside courts.

A lot of posts (which I have explained) were answering when posters used used extreme examples of of something to back up their view and I showed the opposite extreme examples to show things aren't black and white.

Like I have also stated I appreciate you make the time to respond even if you disagree with my posts 

Edited by ELBOWSEYE
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Again you fail to read posts correctly, I stated that it's some of the issues I wanted and liked actually debating, but it's hard when certain posters don't read or don't want to read posts and in some cases these posts have to be read with a view to seeing the context they were written (possible over numerous back and too posts) but I asked anyone to take that post the wrong way and I didn't have to wait long.

Which posts am i not reading correctly? You spent the first few pages claiming there was some sort of agenda from Charnley and Leigh against McGuire(which is just tin foil hat stuff) or criticising Charnley for reporting something that by your own later admission you think McGuire said. The majority of your posts have focused on victim blaming, criticisms of the disciplinary process(even though you apparently agree with the guilty verdict) or imagined slights from other posters calling you woke/idiot(of which i can't find any).

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I didn't like the player report but accepted others see differently.

The level of bans compared to serious foul play.

The reliability of a balance of probability (or slightly different) decision.

How that sits in the outside courts.

A lot of posts (which I have explained) were answering when posters used used extreme examples of of something to back up their view and I showed the opposite extreme examples to show things aren't black and white.

Like I have also stated I appreciate you make the time to respond even if you disagree with my posts 

to be fair I have discussed most of these things with you, I dont think at any point I have thought you have been on the side of McGuire did nothing wrong.. severity of it etc yes but not that he did nothing wrong. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, LeytherRob said:

Which posts am i not reading correctly? You spent the first few pages claiming there was some sort of agenda from Charnley and Leigh against McGuire(which is just tin foil hat stuff) or criticising Charnley for reporting something that by your own later admission you think McGuire said. The majority of your posts have focused on victim blaming, criticisms of the disciplinary process(even though you apparently agree with the guilty verdict) or imagined slights from other posters calling you woke/idiot(of which i can't find any).

 

Never stated woke I used that word, I was called ignorant and an idiot, but failing to find is not surprising, again I checked the posts and 4 out of 40 referred to Charnley in the reporting, I to Leigh which I said was poor,the rest of on other areas and answering posters who fail to read posts correctly. But eventually this topic will finish and we can get back to normal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Again Dave you take what you want to take out of a post. I was just showing the elements of doubt in these types of cases.

McGuire by the first case is shown to be unreliable but that should not stop discussion on any cases.

I'm afraid there really isn't any other way to read this.

We know people lie, we know people can be good communicators versus others being poor and so on.

The experts have listened to the evidence, been there for the cross-examination and concluded that Charnley was a credible witness. You then provide an example that shows that this doesn't mean truthful.

I'm not sure what else anyone is meant to take from your post. Particularly considering you have been critical of Charnley running to teacher throughout this. 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

Never stated woke I used that word, I was called ignorant and an idiot, but failing to find is not surprising, again I checked the posts and 4 out of 40 referred to Charnley in the reporting, I to Leigh which I said was poor,the rest of on other areas and answering posters who fail to read posts correctly. But eventually this topic will finish and we can get back to normal.

Who called you an ignorant and idiot? I assume the post has been removed? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Who called you an ignorant and idiot? I assume the post has been removed? 

Found the post you relate to @ELBOWSEYE, but I didn't read it as the poster calling you a name.

The person was critical of the view that 'grassing' is worse than doing the crime. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Why is this even still on here ? 🙄

You do know how forums work don't you? 

This one still has some legs in it as we have to expect a response from Wire. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

You do know how forums work don't you? 

This one still has some legs in it as we have to expect a response from Wire. 

Powell pointedly keeping his counsel on this at the press conference yesterday - it sounds very much like if the player decides to appeal the club will let that take its course, but it seems to me that any such appeal is unlikely to succeed and at that point I would expect the club to sack the player. Time will tell, as always.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.