Widnes Nick Gregson Ban

[LeeF]

Gregson accepted he was guilty according to the press release

[OMEGA]

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. 

I’ve just seen a screen grab of 3 Tweets from 2024 and if they are what’s been used to justify a ban then it’s still harsh from the RFL!
The 3 Tweets I’ve seen are his views on a certain aspect of life and while not palatable to some they’re his views and he’s entitled to hold them. The language he uses is not extreme or threatening, in fact it’s mild to say the least. His opinion on the subject he refers to is as valid as those who hold the opposing view yet while others can express their view Gregson is told he can’t. 

Maybe there’s more than what I’ve seen but I can’t find any others so I’m not sure others would either

 

 

[The Phantom Horseman]

This story could be used in media studies classes when they're teaching how to/not to control a narrative.

The RFL's only comment to date, AFAIK, is that Gregson accepted that he was guilty of "historical tweets using unacceptable language".

Widnes added the phrase "dating back to 2012" in a brief story on their website.

And that's all we've got to go on, which has resulted in a wide range of people, both within the media and on social media, putting their own interpretation on the story. For instance, Love Rugby League have posted that "Gregson was between the ages of 17 and 18 when those tweets were posted"  whereas journalist (and Widnes fan) James Gordon has tweeted in reply to one comment "To be fair, it says dating back to 2012 - there were some much more recently."

I had a couple of posts deleted earlier on this thread and I totally understand why, but for now we're left with a story that is arousing a huge amount of attention but which it's also very difficult to comment upon because the key components of the story are missing.

 

[Eddie]

18 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

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. 

The RFL aren’t his employer though, and also not liking and banning are completely different. 

[Eddie]

11 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

I’ve just seen a screen grab of 3 Tweets from 2024 and if they are what’s been used to justify a ban then it’s still harsh from the RFL!
The 3 Tweets I’ve seen are his views on a certain aspect of life and while not palatable to some they’re his views and he’s entitled to hold them. The language he uses is not extreme or threatening, in fact it’s mild to say the least. His opinion on the subject he refers to is as valid as those who hold the opposing view yet while others can express their view Gregson is told he can’t. 

Maybe there’s more than what I’ve seen but I can’t find any others so I’m not sure others would either

 

 

What’s the subject of them please? 

[Eddie]

15 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Gregson accepted he was guilty according to the press release

Guilty of what? 

[OriginalMrC]

13 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

I’ve just seen a screen grab of 3 Tweets from 2024 and if they are what’s been used to justify a ban then it’s still harsh from the RFL!
The 3 Tweets I’ve seen are his views on a certain aspect of life and while not palatable to some they’re his views and he’s entitled to hold them. The language he uses is not extreme or threatening, in fact it’s mild to say the least. His opinion on the subject he refers to is as valid as those who hold the opposing view yet while others can express their view Gregson is told he can’t. 

Maybe there’s more than what I’ve seen but I can’t find any others so I’m not sure others would either

 

 

Whether you personally find something offensive or not is irrelevant. An independent tribunal decided he had posted offensive material online and he accepted he was guilty.

[OMEGA]

5 minutes ago, Eddie said:

What’s the subject of them please? 

Without the risk of getting into trouble myself in 13 years time it’s hard to say exactly

He uses the first name of the famous ‘magic dragon who lived by the sea’

He also objects to the way Sam Smith dresses nowerdays and doesn’t agree with men saying they’re women  adopting babies then pretending they’re in a Labour ward having just given birth so they can have photos for their album

Hope thats OK

Edited March 20 by OMEGA

[OriginalMrC]

5 minutes ago, Eddie said:

The RFL aren’t his employer though, and also not liking and banning are completely different. 

Semantics. And you surely know the sport well enough to know the RFL are the governing body in this case?

[JonM]

3 minutes ago, Eddie said:

The RFL aren’t his employer though, and also not liking and banning are completely different. 

The RFL does have a social media policy which all players are expected to adhere to, in the same way that they're supposed to check what they're put in their bodies and avoid performance enhancing drugs.

Same thing applies to football, cricket, rugby union and probably every other professional sport. Plenty of examples of players in the Premier League being banned for posting racist or homophobic comments in years gone by. They've all learned not to do it in recent seasons.

[OMEGA]

5 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Whether you personally find something offensive or not is irrelevant. An independent tribunal decided he had posted offensive material online and he accepted he was guilty.

Maybe there’s are people who find his views normal and the opposing view offensive?

The point is, why is one view protected while the other is is not!

[Damien]

31 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

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. 

Plenty of people have been sacked by their employers because of what they post online. It's hardly a stretch for sports organisations and clubs to take a similar stance (and very usually a lesser stance than outright dismissal).

[OMEGA]

29 minutes ago, LeeF said:

Gregson accepted he was guilty according to the press release

Did he have much choice?

[OriginalMrC]

9 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

Maybe there’s are people who find his views normal and the opposing view offensive?

The point is, why is one view protected while the other is is not!

You are just speculating here. An independent tribunal looked into the issue and found him guilty. 

[RigbyLuger]

20 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

the first name of the famous ‘magic dragon who lived by the sea’

Anyone who does that knows what they are doing. It's discriminatory language.

[OMEGA]

Just now, OriginalMrC said:

You are just speculating here. An independent tribunal looked into the issue and found him guilty. 

There’s no speculation in my comment, his position, opinion and view have been deemed to be wrong while the opposing view is deemed right!

In the posts I’ve seen he isn’t using extreme language and he isn’t threatening in any way, had he crossed a line on those fronts I’d agree with some form of warning or sanction but he didn’t.

The issue here is a societal one, why can he not hold and express his opinion when others holding the opposing opinion, also deemed offensive and damaging by some, can express theirs?

If he were to tweet pro trans stuff would he be equally as guilty?

[RP London]

11 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

Maybe there’s are people who find his views normal and the opposing view offensive?

The point is, why is one view protected while the other is is not!

There are people who hold many different views as normal and the opposing view to be offensive. The RFL have decided that they are going to be an inclusive sport and therefore by being non inclusive and holding prejudicial views you would be going against their sports values an therefore breaking the terms of the "social media contract". 

Its not a personal thing it is what you sign up to. 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, they also should be able to be called out on it (both sides) but when you decide to work in an organisation that has "values" that they want everyone to adhere to, and have a policy enforcing those then you either keep to them or you find somewhere to play/work that is more aligned to your values. 

As a general rule in life I find that tends to work.. If I don't like the values being espoused in a pub I walk out of the pub, if I don't like what the people I am with are saying I don't keep hanging out with them (after challenging it first), if a company I work for acts in a dishonest way or one that goes against my personal values I leave the company. 

[OMEGA]

5 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Anyone who does that knows what they are doing. It's discriminatory language.

Look at the context in which he used the word, it’s obviously not used as a homophobic insult

[RP London]

2 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

There’s no speculation in my comment, his position, opinion and view have been deemed to be wrong while the opposing view is deemed right!

In the posts I’ve seen he isn’t using extreme language and he isn’t threatening in any way, had he crossed a line on those fronts I’d agree with some form of warning or sanction but he didn’t.

The issue here is a societal one, why can he not hold and express his opinion when others holding the opposing opinion, also deemed offensive and damaging by some, can express theirs?

If he were to tweet pro trans stuff would he be equally as guilty?

This isnt a court of law, this is a "company tribunal" for want of a better way of looking at it. He has fallen foul of the company policy.. therefore gets punished by the company. 

Whether it is harsh or not would depend on how the punishments are laid out in the policy I would guess. Sheer weight of numbers is probably in there hence they trawled back through the tweets. 

[The Phantom Horseman]

8 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

Maybe there’s are people who find his views normal and the opposing view offensive?

The point is, why is one view protected while the other is is not!

There are some people who find making monkey noises at black sportsmen to be acceptable (because this sort of thing still happens across the world). Should their view be protected, too?

It is absolutely hammered into pro and semi-pro sportsmen by their clubs what is and isn't acceptable for them to be putting on social media, and that if in doubt they should leave it out. The RFL social media code of conduct is quite clear about what it considers to be unacceptable language (see below from the Operational Rules Manual), and RL players have to adhere to that code if they wish to play the game at a pro or semi-pro level.

Don’t use Unacceptable Language or portray behaviour that would qualify as Unacceptable
Behaviour online – this includes in particular anything which could be considered racist,
homophobic, transphobic, ageist or sexist or anything which shows prejudice or disrespect
to anyone with a disability or against someone’s religion or nationality. Any cases of
Unacceptable Language and/or Behaviour will be dealt with, with a Zero Tolerance
approach by the RFL

[RP London]

7 minutes ago, OMEGA said:

Look at the context in which he used the word, it’s obviously not used as a homophobic insult

and is that the one he gets the ban for? maybe its just an example that has been put up there for someone to prove a point (either way) and it isnt actually one they were worried about.. 

I havent seen it so wouldnt make a call either way. 

[OMEGA]

13 minutes ago, RP London said:

There are people who hold many different views as normal and the opposing view to be offensive. The RFL have decided that they are going to be an inclusive sport and therefore by being non inclusive and holding prejudicial views you would be going against their sports values an therefore breaking the terms of the "social media contract". 

 

So if he wants to be a Rugby League player he has to accept that his opinion is silenced?

I could argue that the RFLs own stance is in itself prejudicial and non inclusive

[OMEGA]

11 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

There are some people who find making monkey noises at black sportsmen to be acceptable (because this sort of thing still happens across the world). Should their view be protected, too?
 

Dont be ridiculous!

[RigbyLuger]

1 minute ago, OMEGA said:

I could argue that the RFLs own stance is in itself prejudicial and non inclusive

Only if you think people who are legally allowed to exist, shouldn't be able to. 

There's also plenty who have sent racially insensitive tweets who appear to have got away with it as well. 

[OMEGA]

3 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Only if you think people who are legally allowed to exist, shouldn't be able to.  

I’m going to put my cards on the table at this point if only to prevent anyone getting the wrong opinion about why I’m putting an opposing argument out there! I have no issue with trans, gay etc none whatsoever! Two of my own children are gay, it makes no difference to me and I couldn’t be more proud of them

I do feel though that the censoring of one side of the argument or cancelling people because they don’t agree with a current societal trend or view is not right. As long as those on either side of the debate don’t cross the line then both should be heard as both are valid.