Widnes Nick Gregson Ban

[wroteforluck87]

I'm obviously not privy to the nature or context of the tweets but it does strike me as a tad harsh. We are all young and stupid once surely it would of been better to make him delete the tweets and go on a social media awareness course. 

[gingerjon]

17 hours ago, OMEGA said:

Nick Gregson has been banned for 8 games (5 suspended) for historic posts dated back to 2012!

I know nothing of the posts and their content so I’m not commenting on them. 
However, Gregson is 29 now and the posts were in 2012 when he was just 16 years old and not even a Professional Player.

As I said I don’t know the content of the posts but on the face of it this seems like a big over reach by the RFL disciplinary 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/articles/c98425j22g7o

 

Looks like a bunch were from 2024.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, wroteforluck87 said:

I'm obviously not privy to the nature or context of the tweets but it does strike me as a tad harsh. We are all young and stupid once surely it would of been better to make him delete the tweets and go on a social media awareness course. 

If that was all it was then I'd agree. I think it's safest to assume it isn't hence the ban.. they don't tend to pick these things out of the air as they can be challenged not only in the court of public opinion but also on appeal within itself and to CAS (or the equivalent) as shown by Mark Aston 

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, RP London said:

If that was all it was then I'd agree. I think it's safest to assume it isn't hence the ban.. they don't tend to pick these things out of the air as they can be challenged not only in the court of public opinion but also on appeal within itself and to CAS (or the equivalent) as shown by Mark Aston 

Mark Aston is still employed within rugby league, though, I believe? Everyone happy to let that drift with no appeal date in sight?

[whatmichaelsays]

There was a similar incident in cricket four years ago with Ollie Robinson. England bowler Ollie Robinson suspended for eight matches for past racist and sexist tweets - BBC Sport

Yes, there is a degree of "young and dumb" with a lot of this sort of stuff, but you don't have to be a wise head to understand that if you post something online that is clearly not appropriate, it is likely to have consequences. 

[gingerjon]

3 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Yes, there is a degree of "young and dumb" with a lot of this sort of stuff,

To repeat: 2024 tweets.

[langpark]

This is a potentially massive Pandora's box if I have ever seen one.  What next?  They start interviewing our teachers from High School to see what sort of mischief we got up to as teenagers?

Also, for many of us who have had a social media account, for nearly 20 years now, it is actually not that easy to go back and find every post and/or comment you have ever made.  So unless you delete the account entirely, it's a job for a forensic team to find every unsavoury comment you may have ever made.  

[gingerjon]

Just now, langpark said:

This is a potentially massive Pandora's box if I have ever seen one.  What next?  They start interviewing our teachers from High School to see what sort of mischief we got up to as teenagers?

Also, for many of us who have had a social media account, for nearly 20 years now, it is actually not that easy to go back and find every post and/or comment you have ever made.  So unless you delete the account entirely, it's a job for a forensic team to find every unsavoury comment you may have ever made.  

Shall I just put up an auto prompt that says: the tweets include some from last year.

But the reporting would like you to be livid that a nudging 30 year old is being banned for something he did when he couldn't legally drive.

[langpark]

2 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Shall I just put up an auto prompt that says: the tweets include some from last year.

But the reporting would like you to be livid that a nudging 30 year old is being banned for something he did when he couldn't legally drive.

Yes but there is no indication given of what the severity of each one is.  For example, 2024 he may have said something mildly offensive, but 2012 something hugely offensive that effected the size of his overall ban.  We don't really know, do we?  The fact the 2012 tweets were even factored in at all seems, bizarre to say the least.

[RP London]

34 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Mark Aston is still employed within rugby league, though, I believe? Everyone happy to let that drift with no appeal date in sight?

I dont think happy is the way I'd describe my feelings on the situation... not a thing out of Eagles, or the RFL its an utter farce... (to be fair gregson is still employed too, just cant play for the 3 matches). 

The reason I used Aston was that he has demanded this appeal as he feels (wrongly IMHO) that he is being harshly treated, therefore, if this was similar (content from 2012) you would assume that similar noises would come from Widnes or Gregson himself, and I couldnt remember if Aston was CAS or someone else hence using his example. 

Edited March 20 by RP London

[The Blues Ox]

He probably had something like "Thoughts are my own" in his bio. That's always a dead give away.

[gingerjon]

10 minutes ago, langpark said:

Yes but there is no indication given of what the severity of each one is.  For example, 2024 he may have said something mildly offensive, but 2012 something hugely offensive that effected the size of his overall ban.  We don't really know, do we?  The fact the 2012 tweets were even factored in at all seems, bizarre to say the least.

Does it? If my defence is, say, that the easily findable 2024 tweets, are out of character then a good way to show they’re not is to show them as part of a history of similar.

[RP London]

18 minutes ago, langpark said:

Yes but there is no indication given of what the severity of each one is.  For example, 2024 he may have said something mildly offensive, but 2012 something hugely offensive that effected the size of his overall ban.  We don't really know, do we?  The fact the 2012 tweets were even factored in at all seems, bizarre to say the least.

I dont think that would be unique to this situation as it shows charachter (even if it is back until they were 16) but maybe effecting the size of the ban in terms of "hes always been like this and no one has said anything therefore the acceptability of the comments has not been challenged properly which is our failing as a governing body" and so hence the suspended 5 matches rather than a full 8 game ban giving him the opportunity not to act in that way again.. 

until we get some detail we really just dont know. 

[Rugbyleaguesupporter]

The RFL can make ridiculous decisions, but do we really think they ban someone for tweets when they were 16? 

It's pretty obvious there are more recent tweets (and they would have showed a selection since 2012) 

Pretty misleading for Widnes to frame it in this way 

[OriginalMrC]

I assume all of you coming out in support have seen the relevant tweets to help you decide whether or not they were offensive? And as mentioned above they weren't from when he was 16....

[Dave T]

47 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Does it? If my defence is, say, that the easily findable 2024 tweets, are out of character then a good way to show they’re not is to show them as part of a history of similar.

A great example of people reading what they want, and Widnes acting extremely disingenuously.

Your point about 2024 tweets is being ignored so people can say how ridiculous this is. Widnes knew what they were doing and I'm comfortable saying that anyone who's read your post and ignores it does too.

[Damien]

58 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Does it? If my defence is, say, that the easily findable 2024 tweets, are out of character then a good way to show they’re not is to show them as part of a history of similar.

I think it's very likely that they were made aware of recent tweets from last year and searched back from there. Obviously they then uncovered others going as far back as 13 years.

If the RFL hadn't have gone back further and cast judgement, and perhaps been seen as letting Gregson off lightly, then they would have been castigated by the same people outraged now.

If this was a case of Gregson being punished for a couple of tweets from 13 years ago when he was 16 I'd agree it would be harsh. It isn't though so the entire premis that people are being outraged by is incorrect.

[Martyn Sadler]

1 hour ago, whatmichaelsays said:

There was a similar incident in cricket four years ago with Ollie Robinson. England bowler Ollie Robinson suspended for eight matches for past racist and sexist tweets - BBC Sport

Yes, there is a degree of "young and dumb" with a lot of this sort of stuff, but you don't have to be a wise head to understand that if you post something online that is clearly not appropriate, it is likely to have consequences. 

Again, I wish that posters would not make assumptions that are later proved incorrect.

I'm told by the RFL that there is no suggestion of any racist tweets having been posted by Gregson.

And that is why I have asked the RFL to issue a statement clarifying as precisely as possible the rationale of the decision by the tribunal.

Until then I would advise anyone to not assume things that are not in the public domain.

[Martyn Sadler]

7 hours ago, Wilderspoolmemories said:

I well remember your 'assumption' which you put into print ahead of the 2009 Rugby league Challenge cup final. The 'assumption' that Huddersfield would undoubtedly win! I'm so sorry that we spoiled your party!

You have a remarkable memory.

I'm shocked if I really did make that claim.

Perhaps I should be suspended.

[Dave T]

6 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

Again, I wish that posters would not make assumptions that are later proved incorrect.

I'm told by the RFL that there is no suggestion of any racist tweets having been posted by Gregson.

And that is why I have asked the RFL to issue a statement clarifying as precisely as possible the rationale of the decision by the tribunal.

Until then I would advise anyone to not assume things that are not in the public domain.

There are screen grabs of some posts presenting offensive views and words from 2024 on twitter from Gregson.

I have no idea whether they are what he has been punished for, but a homophonic slur is used and there are a couple of anti-trans posts. 

I don't think this is incorrect to highlight it as its in the public domain.

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

You have a remarkable memory.

I'm shocked if I really did make that claim.

Perhaps I should be suspended.

Maybe run a quick poll?

[Eddie]

1 hour ago, OriginalMrC said:

I assume all of you coming out in support have seen the relevant tweets to help you decide whether or not they were offensive? And as mentioned above they weren't from when he was 16....

Those defending the ban haven’t seen them either tbf. This whole debate is pointless, though I’m in favour of free speech and without the benefit of seeing the tweets I think it’s harsh to ban someone for expressing an opinion, as long as it’s not inciting violence. 

Edited March 20 by Eddie

[gingerjon]

4 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Those defending the ban haven’t seen them either tbf. This whole debate is pointless, though I’m in favour of free speech and without the benefit of seeing the tweets I think it’s harsh to ban someone for expressing an opinion, as long as it’s not inciting violence. 

There are screen grabs and examples on the socials. I’m not sure a ban is appropriate but it’s also clear he isn’t being punished for something he did when he was 16.

[OriginalMrC]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

Those defending the ban haven’t seen them either tbf. This whole debate is pointless, though I’m in favour of free speech and without the benefit of seeing the tweets I think it’s harsh to ban someone for expressing an opinion, as long as it’s not inciting violence. 

People can post what they like online but shouldn't be surprised if their employer doesn't like what they've posted particularly if they represent a sport which is trying to be inclusive. 

[Worzel]

Widnes' statement referring to "dating back to 2012" was deliberately misleading. The behaviour continued as he got older, right up to last year. All of us are responsible for our actions, and risk being held accountable if we are in a position where it can be damaging to the interests of our employers or other organisation. In my own firm's contracts I have "reputational" clauses, including my own. This is normal.