Jump to content

Wolves sign Josh McGuire

The Future is League
 Share

Recommended Posts

Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted

In my view, the fact that the panel in both cases were happy to place into the notes that they concluded that McGuire was not telling the truth is incredibly telling.

They could have focused purely on the credibility / believability of the witnesses for the 'prosecution' but they chose to explicitly state both times that McGuire was lying.  This tells me that the witnesses and their testimony must have been so overwhelming and clear that the decision was the proverbial 'no brainer'. 

  • Like 3

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 450
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

RP London
RP London

I know this is a controversial stand point but he could just, you know, stop saying them.. thats the easiest way to stop the bans.  Hefty bans are there to just stop behaviour that is easy to sto

OriginalMrC
OriginalMrC

This has nothing to do with free speech.  This has nothing to do with being 'woke'.  This has nothing to do with modern players being soft.  This is not a decision based on one person's

RP London
RP London

its funny how "woke" is thrown into conversations like this.. I never thought of myself as woke but I seem to end up on the "woke" side of arguments because I am just generally on the side of if

JohnM

JohnM

Posted
Posted

If McGuire feels he has a case, he can appeal....and should. He does however, need to be very sure of his grounds for doing so, not based on what forum members think, but based on due process and evidence.  For sure, though, he's going to be on the end of some subtle sledging and up-winding when he eventually retakes the field.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tommygilf

Tommygilf

Posted
Posted
15 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

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.

Generally they don't publish publicly things that could be deemed to contravene the law unnecessarily. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
phiggins

phiggins

Posted
Posted

My take on those notes is, they believed Charnley. He was consistent in his account, and didn’t come across as a BS merchant. But they also appreciated the fact that he could’ve been honest in his report and simply misheard.

Crucially, they didn’t believe McGuire, and Kasiano did him no favours and the defence arguement had inconsistencies. Had he simply said he only called him a rat and not brought his team mates into it or claimed he’d never say such things. He’d probably have created enough doubt. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tommygilf

Tommygilf

Posted
Posted
18 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'.

Shall we link him to the Leeds vs Cas/McDonnell thread 😂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ELBOWSEYE

ELBOWSEYE

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, JohnM said:

If McGuire feels he has a case, he can appeal....and should. He does however, need to be very sure of his grounds for doing so, not based on what forum members think, but based on due process and evidence.  For sure, though, he's going to be on the end of some subtle sledging and up-winding when he eventually retakes the field.

That's what will put an end to this one way or another if he appeals,he would obviously take legal advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Gavin Harrison said:

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

 

Out of interest, can you explain the difference between groupthink and majority opinion.  It couldn't just be as simple as which opinion you agree with could it.  Could it?

  • Thanks 4

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gavin Harrison

Gavin Harrison

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

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.

There is NO evidence.

It is he said she said.

That cannot possibly meet any burden of proof.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
ELBOWSEYE

ELBOWSEYE

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

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.

I am not a lawyer so as a punter you would expect the professionals to eventually sort this out. The ball's in McGuire's court, if he.is adamant he is innocent he has to appeal,if he doesn't no matter what he may say he legally labelled an unbelievable witness(I wasn't sure I could use the single word).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
ELBOWSEYE

ELBOWSEYE

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Out of interest, can you explain the difference between groupthink and majority opinion.  It couldn't just be as simple as which opinion you agree with could it.  Could it?

I think it's probably the tone of some responses to posters who view things differently than the majority

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Tommygilf

Tommygilf

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Gavin Harrison said:

There is NO evidence.

It is he said she said.

That cannot possibly meet any burden of proof.

It can absolutely, especially if you're pretty certain one person is a liar.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
LeytherRob

LeytherRob

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I am not a lawyer so as a punter you would expect the professionals to eventually sort this out. The ball's in McGuire's court, if he.is adamant he is innocent he has to appeal,if he doesn't no matter what he may say he legally labelled an unbelievable witness(I wasn't sure I could use the single word).

They have, the tribunal is chaired by a QC and Maguire had legal representation.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
StandOffHalf

StandOffHalf

Posted
Posted
27 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

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."

Nothing less would do, and yet it did do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gavin Harrison

Gavin Harrison

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

Out of interest, can you explain the difference between groupthink and majority opinion.  It couldn't just be as simple as which opinion you agree with could it.  Could it?

Read the contributions. I can only see two people questioning. anything. Both without any grounds labelled as defending McGuire.

Numerous reasonings offered for this non compliance.

Groupthink

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted

I know I can Google it but very lazy.  Did McGuire appeal the previous decision/ban?

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Gavin Harrison

Gavin Harrison

Posted
Posted
29 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

In my view, the fact that the panel in both cases were happy to place into the notes that they concluded that McGuire was not telling the truth is incredibly telling.

They could have focused purely on the credibility / believability of the witnesses for the 'prosecution' but they chose to explicitly state both times that McGuire was lying.  This tells me that the witnesses and their testimony must have been so overwhelming and clear that the decision was the proverbial 'no brainer'. 

Having found him guilty, they have to justify it....

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dave T

Dave T

Posted
Posted (edited)
22 minutes ago, ELBOWSEYE said:

I think it's probably the tone of some responses to posters who view things differently than the majority

 

Please take this in the spirit is intended, but I think you are being rather thin-skinned to people disagreeing with you on this. The tone of this discussion has been really civil for such a contentious subject.

I've had a skim read through the early pages again before posting this, but I don't see the attitudes to you that you claim. One of the most antagonistic posts was on page 4 where you brought "woke" and "idiot" into the discussion. 

Personally I think it has been a decent thread with plenty of good posts and interesting views presented. 

Most of the "attacks" are against the majority view, beibg accused of group think. 

Edited by Dave T
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Dunbar

Dunbar

Posted
Posted
5 minutes ago, Gavin Harrison said:

Having found him guilty, they have to justify it....

That's usually how it works yes.

  • Like 1

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

"If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? If someone doesn't value logic, what logical argument could you provide to show the importance of logic?" — Sam Harris

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • 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.