Widnes Nick Gregson Ban

[John Drake]

Please stick to the original point of the thread, or it'll end up getting drop-kicked into the politics sub-forum, where most of the latter posts above belong.

Thanks.

[CanaBull]

12 minutes ago, Eddie said:

They have a lot more freedom of speech than we do, that’s undeniable. 

Take it from someone who lives next door to them. You have more freedom of speech and more accountability in the UK than in the US, even before the latest  President.

[gingerjon]

Just now, John Drake said:

Please stick to the original point of the thread, or it'll end up getting drop-kicked into the politics sub-forum, where most of the latter posts above belong.

Thanks.

Fair enough.

On topic: you can argue about the ban, I think, but not whether such terms and conditions are unusual or unreasonable. A lot of employers will have a “no politics of any kind” rule. 

[RP London]

20 minutes ago, John Drake said:

Please stick to the original point of the thread, or it'll end up getting drop-kicked into the politics sub-forum, where most of the latter posts above belong.

Thanks.

faire enough sorry.

18 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

Fair enough.

On topic: you can argue about the ban, I think, but not whether such terms and conditions are unusual or unreasonable. A lot of employers will have a “no politics of any kind” rule. 

yes I think this is the thing, the ban may be too strong, or maybe not strong enough and a lot of that will depend on the exact language and recurrence of it which we are still to find out about. He has a set of rules laid out by the governing body, if he has broken those he deserves the punishment. 

 

[RP London]

interestingly i googled the RFL Social Media policy as I was interested to see when it came in... havent found it yet.. but the first 4 of the top 10 google responses, and all of the responses that were directly back to the RFL website were to amateur teams; Thato Heath, Shevington Sharks, Stanley Rangers and Wyke all of which had variations of the below on their website and also the safeguarding style rules around under 18s and parents etc. So its pretty well out there and reading the below set of rules it makes an awful lot of sense for everybody in life really. Frankly if people stuck to these rules it would be a much nicer place to inhabit. 

https://thattoheathcrusaders.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Social-Media-Code-of-Conduct.pdf

[Eddie]

41 minutes ago, John Drake said:

Please stick to the original point of the thread, or it'll end up getting drop-kicked into the politics sub-forum, where most of the latter posts above belong.

Thanks.

Yes fair enough sorry John. 

[RigbyLuger]

If I'm Super League, I wouldn't use Joe Burgess in my publicity on social media either, and if I were Hull KR, I wouldn't publicise his schools visits. That's just dumb.

[RigbyLuger]

11 minutes ago, RP London said:

interestingly i googled the RFL Social Media policy as I was interested to see when it came in... havent found it yet.. but the first 4 of the top 10 google responses, and all of the responses that were directly back to the RFL website were to amateur teams; Thato Heath, Shevington Sharks, Stanley Rangers and Wyke all of which had variations of the below on their website and also the safeguarding style rules around under 18s and parents etc. So its pretty well out there and reading the below set of rules it makes an awful lot of sense for everybody in life really. Frankly if people stuck to these rules it would be a much nicer place to inhabit. 

https://thattoheathcrusaders.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Social-Media-Code-of-Conduct.pdf

There's at least one journalist who has questioned the impartiality of time keepers, so maybe they could read that guidance!

[Tommygilf]

8 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

There's at least one journalist who has questioned the impartiality of time keepers, so maybe they could read that guidance!

Does that "journalist" have strong opinions on Ralph Rimmer and Karen Moorhouse?

[dkw]

5 minutes ago, Tommygilf said:

Does that "journalist" have strong opinions on Ralph Rimmer and Karen Moorhouse?

And pies.

[LeeF]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

interestingly i googled the RFL Social Media policy as I was interested to see when it came in... havent found it yet.. but the first 4 of the top 10 google responses, and all of the responses that were directly back to the RFL website were to amateur teams; Thato Heath, Shevington Sharks, Stanley Rangers and Wyke all of which had variations of the below on their website and also the safeguarding style rules around under 18s and parents etc. So its pretty well out there and reading the below set of rules it makes an awful lot of sense for everybody in life really. Frankly if people stuck to these rules it would be a much nicer place to inhabit. 

https://thattoheathcrusaders.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Social-Media-Code-of-Conduct.pdf

https://www.rugby-league.com/flipbooks/2023-operational-rules-tiers-1-3/index.html

This is from a couple of years ago - page 356

 

 

[StandOffHalf]

10 hours 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.

100%. If he posted something while bound by RFL regulations on social media usage then, certainly, act towards him. A quiet work as to his responsibilities as a player, that sort of thing. That stuff from his youth is in the equation seems outside the remit of such policies.

Edited March 20 by StandOffHalf

[StandOffHalf]

 

7 hours 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?

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

So basically all pro and semi-pro RL players in the UK have to silently accept trangenderism in children, all while the English Govt moves away from puberty blocking interventions. It seems out of whack.

Edited March 20 by StandOffHalf

[RP London]

9 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

 

So basically all pro and semi-pro RL players in the UK have to silently accept trangenderism in children, all while the English Govt moves away from puberty blocking interventions. It seems out of whack.

No that's not what these sorts of things say.. you don't have to silently accept transgenderism in children at all.. but you cannot use discriminatory language against people, the two things are not the same.

Equally we have not seen (and we may not) the exact wording that has got him in bother..  there is a difference between "I don't like the way Sam smith dresses" and "Sam Smith should not dress like a women HE isn't one!" The second is transphobic as you are deliberately saying that they have no right to wear whatever they like (an opinion but it's stopping you having freedom etc) and you are using deliberate pronouns to cause offence, you know that this will cause offence to that person and anybody else who chooses to use they/them.. etc... I wouldn't ban someone for this but it's just an example that without the exact tweets this is really hard to judge. I use it as deliberately provocative of an argument around pronouns etc because the language can be subtle but highly offensive and it's that which could cause people issues.. and is the difference between vocalising and opinion and being offensive. 

Edited March 20 by RP London

[EagleEyePie]

5 hours ago, dkw said:

It looks like it was the Widnes twitter account that added in the 2012 thing, muddying the waters unnecessarily.

It seems like the Widnes tweet is where other news outlets got their wording from too. I saw the report on the BBC Sport website and said earlier in the thread that if there were more recent tweets then it was very badly worded. I don't see the point in them being ambiguous on purpose, as the full details were always likely to come out eventually.

[StandOffHalf]

7 minutes ago, RP London said:

No that's not what these sorts of things say.. you don't have to silently accept transgenderism in children at all.. but you cannot use discriminatory language against people, the two things are not the same.

Equally we have not seen (and we may not) the exact wording that has got him in bother..  there is a difference between "I don't like the way Sam smith dresses" and "Sam Smith should not dress like a women HE isn't one!" The second is transphobic as you are deliberately saying that they have no right to wear whatever they like (an opinion but it's stopping you having freedom etc) and you are using deliberate pronouns to cause offence, you know that this will cause offence to that person and anybody else who chooses to use they/them.. etc... I wouldn't ban someone for this but it's just an example that without the exact tweets this is really hard to judge. 

The RFL rules refer to ''anything which could be considered'' as offensive. An opposing view could be considered offensive, even in the mildest form. Really, the rules seek to stop opposition and create acquiescence.

Legislating for offence is a slippery slope and an ideological imposition.

Edited March 20 by StandOffHalf

[RP London]

8 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

The RFL rules refer to ''anything which could be considered'' as offensive. An opposing view could be considered offensive, even in the mildest form. Really, the rules seek to stop opposition and create acquiescence.

Legislating for offence is a slippery slope and an ideological imposition.

No, its the same as the wording of the anti money laundering rules which is around "any normal person". It's because attitudes and "offence" change so the wording can stay the same but cover it all. What you say one day in a certain way may not be offensive 1 year later or vice versa bit can 100% be judged at the time because we "all know what you mean". That's the point. Judging something from 2012 is not so easy but by going back it can show things like is it just normal language to them but the meaning has changed (like some of us older folk struggling to change language but meaning no offence) or is it developing language all with the same meaning and therefore knowing exactly what it means. 

[whatmichaelsays]

9 hours 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.

Where in my post did I accuse anyone of racism?

[Martyn Sadler]

12 minutes ago, whatmichaelsays said:

Where in my post did I accuse anyone of racism?

I didn't say you did.

You 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

That implied that racism may have been a factor in this case.

I was pointing out that it wasn't.

The fact that you didn't directly accuse Nick Gregson of racism is why your post wasn't deleted but instead I clarified the point you made.

[gingerjon]

Just now, Martyn Sadler said:

I didn't say you did.

You 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

That implied that racism may have been a factor in this case.

I was pointing out that it wasn't.

The fact that you didn't directly accuse Nick Gregson of racism is why your post wasn't deleted but instead I clarified the point you made.

So it was a similar but not identical incident.

[StandOffHalf]

16 minutes ago, RP London said:

No, its the same as the wording of the anti money laundering rules which is around "any normal person". It's because attitudes and "offence" change so the wording can stay the same but cover it all. What you say one day in a certain way may not be offensive 1 year later or vice versa bit can 100% be judged at the time because we "all know what you mean". That's the point. Judging something from 2012 is not so easy but by going back it can show things like is it just normal language to them but the meaning has changed (like some of us older folk struggling to change language but meaning no offence) or is it developing language all with the same meaning and therefore knowing exactly what it means. 

Sure, but the effect is to create a blanket set of 'values', some of which are very much contested.

Offence is often subjective.

[Dave T]

Makes me chuckle that some are complaining about freedoms, when there is a screen grab of Gregson calling for Sam Smith to be cancelled suggesting he is brainwashing kids. 

We have no idea whether this was a post he was punished for, but it is publicly online along with another calling trans people mentally ill.

He was retweeting bot accounts aiming to 'end wokeness'.

So let's not come down too much on the whole freedoms piece for the poor soul.

[RP London]

1 hour ago, StandOffHalf said:

Sure, but the effect is to create a blanket set of 'values', some of which are very much contested.

Offence is often subjective.

Of course and it is often up to the person who is being offended to feel offence... But if something can be taken 2 ways perhaps think about whether you want it to come across as "the bad one" before you say it, especially online where "tone" is notoriously difficult to gauge... There we go no offence then caused simples

[whatmichaelsays]

2 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

 

That implied that racism may have been a factor in this case.

 

No, it didn't imply anything of the sort. That's your inference. 

The comment is made, and the similarities drawn, in the context of a sportsperson being disciplined for a historical social media post.

Edited March 20 by whatmichaelsays

[StandOffHalf]

2 hours ago, RP London said:

Of course and it is often up to the person who is being offended to feel offence... But if something can be taken 2 ways perhaps think about whether you want it to come across as "the bad one" before you say it, especially online where "tone" is notoriously difficult to gauge... There we go no offence then caused simples

I agree. By electing to have so many aspects to the rules on social media, it makes those topics stuff to keep mum on. Anything that could be deemed offensive means anything that is difficult or opposing.