Widnes Nick Gregson Ban

[Dave T]

9 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

For those interested I've received a summary of the findings of the independent off-field Operational Rules Tribunal that was held on March 18.

There were three tweets in 2012 to 2013 and three in 2024.

• 3 in 2012-2013 when NG was on Wigan register were found to be Unacceptable Language by the independent Operational Rules Tribunal.
• 1 in March 2024 was found to be Unacceptable Language by the independent Operational Rules Tribunal.
• Player accepted guilt but states he was not looking to offend anyone. 

• Tribunal found that the language used could not be viewed as anything other than discriminatory.
• Player has undertaken EDI training in 2021 to 2024.
• Player despite this training still used Unacceptable Language on social media.
• RFL has zero tolerance approach to discriminatory language and behaviour.

 

It looks like the bullet in italics is the crucial point to me.

[RigbyLuger]

11 minutes ago, Dave T said:

It looks like the bullet in italics is the crucial point to me.

Definitely. And you could argue the punishment should be more because of that. "Not intending to cause offence" also shows a lack of understanding of how social media works, and how that's no excuse.

[The Phantom Horseman]

50 minutes ago, Martyn Sadler said:

For those interested I've received a summary of the findings of the independent off-field Operational Rules Tribunal that was held on March 18.

There were three tweets in 2012 to 2013 and three in 2024.

• 3 in 2012-2013 when NG was on Wigan register were found to be Unacceptable Language by the independent Operational Rules Tribunal.
• 1 in March 2024 was found to be Unacceptable Language by the independent Operational Rules Tribunal.
• Player accepted guilt but states he was not looking to offend anyone. 

• Tribunal found that the language used could not be viewed as anything other than discriminatory.
• Player has undertaken EDI training in 2021 to 2024.
• Player despite this training still used Unacceptable Language on social media.
• RFL has zero tolerance approach to discriminatory language and behaviour.

 

Thank you for that update.

Judged on the dates mentioned, it's not hard to make an educated guess as to the three tweets from 2024, and the one from March that was found to be unacceptable language.

I am only guessing here but I would imagine that whenever a player is cited for this sort of thing theRFL will do a sweep of their historic social media posts as it would be embarrassing to find somebody in breach once and then for earlier breaches to be discovered at a later date.

[dkw]

I expect we will see an apology from the Widnes social media account at some point?

[StandOffHalf]

I think that this supposed zero tolerance policy on discriminatory behaviour and language is just a front for stopping the expression of opposing views.

It's important to remember that the RFL's rules state that anything that could be interpreted as offensive is the yardstick. For me, that's going too far towards overbearing regulation.

I find it disappointing that Gregson admitted his guilt if he didn't mean to offend.

[Dave T]

1 minute ago, StandOffHalf said:

I think that this supposed zero tolerance policy on discriminatory behaviour and language is just a front for stopping the expression of opposing views.

It's important to remember that the RFL's rules state that anything that could be interpreted as offensive is the yardstick. For me, that's going too far towards overbearing regulation.

I find it disappointing that Gregson admitted his guilt if he didn't mean to offend.

We don't see people getting fined left right and centre, so it hardly feels like it's gone too far.

I think its reasonable for RL not to want players to use homophonic slurs or refer to trans people as mentally ill, or refer to LGBTQ+ people as brainwashing.

That feels reasonable and proportionate tbh.

[StandOffHalf]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

We don't see people getting fined left right and centre, so it hardly feels like it's gone too far.

I think its reasonable for RL not to want players to use homophonic slurs or refer to trans people as mentally ill, or refer to LGBTQ+ people as brainwashing.

That feels reasonable and proportionate tbh.

Personal views can be sharply divergent from the zeitgeist and the expression of them isn't necessarily targeted at a specific individual. The person may be used to make a wider point.

I saw some of the tweets in question. They struck me as a reaction and a strongly-held concern, perhaps voiced in not the most judicious terms.

I don't want to shut up dissent and tell people to get in line.

[RigbyLuger]

Why does he feel the need to tweet about such things when he's been educated about them? It's just foolish!

[OriginalMrC]

49 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

I think that this supposed zero tolerance policy on discriminatory behaviour and language is just a front for stopping the expression of opposing views.

It's important to remember that the RFL's rules state that anything that could be interpreted as offensive is the yardstick. For me, that's going too far towards overbearing regulation.

I find it disappointing that Gregson admitted his guilt if he didn't mean to offend.

Sorry but this is just nonsense. What he said was offensive and he admitted as such. I am not sure why you cant see that the RFL wouldnt want players who are role models saying offensive things on social media. Stop trying to turn this into some sort of free speech crusade as its nothing of the sort.

[StandOffHalf]

22 minutes ago, OriginalMrC said:

Sorry but this is just nonsense. What he said was offensive and he admitted as such. I am not sure why you cant see that the RFL wouldnt want players who are role models saying offensive things on social media. Stop trying to turn this into some sort of free speech crusade as its nothing of the sort.

Not just offensive things, but anything that could be interpreted as offensive. I think it's a restrictive measure. The fact that other players haven't been sanctioned bears that out.

[StandOffHalf]

35 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Why does he feel the need to tweet about such things when he's been educated about them? It's just foolish!

Educated or re-educated, haha?

[M j M]

6 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

. The fact that other players haven't been sanctioned bears that out.

I've no idea how you've managed to conclude that.

[gingerjon]

1 hour ago, dkw said:

I expect we will see an apology from the Widnes social media account at some point?

If we really did have the chilling suppression of free speech that some claim, Widnes would already have been charged and found guilty.

[dkw]

1 hour ago, StandOffHalf said:

Personal views can be sharply divergent from the zeitgeist and the expression of them isn't necessarily targeted at a specific individual. The person may be used to make a wider point.

I saw some of the tweets in question. They struck me as a reaction and a strongly-held concern, perhaps voiced in not the most judicious terms.

I don't want to shut up dissent and tell people to get in line.

What total and utter nonsense.

[StandOffHalf]

33 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

If we really did have the chilling suppression of free speech that some claim, Widnes would already have been charged and found guilty.

I don't see how their wording could be seen to fun foul of the RFL's policy on social media posts that could be interpreted as offensive.

Edited March 28 by StandOffHalf

[The Phantom Horseman]

2 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

Personal views can be sharply divergent from the zeitgeist and the expression of them isn't necessarily targeted at a specific individual. The person may be used to make a wider point.

I saw some of the tweets in question. They struck me as a reaction and a strongly-held concern, perhaps voiced in not the most judicious terms.

I don't want to shut up dissent and tell people to get in line.

The one from 2024 that has led to his suspension judged on the RFL's report to Martyn was nothing to do with a "strongly-held concern", it was for using a word that has no other use other than as a derogatory slur towards homosexual people.

It's nothing to do with "shutting up dissent".

 

[StandOffHalf]

7 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

The one from 2024 that has led to his suspension judged on the RFL's report to Martyn was nothing to do with a "strongly-held concern", it was for using a word that has no other use other than as a derogatory slur towards homosexual people.

It's nothing to do with "shutting up dissent".

 

Context is everything. The person in question is all over the press. It was basically a commentary on his concerns using the vernacular that is used by many. 

[RigbyLuger]

4 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

Context is everything. The person in question is all over the press. It was basically a commentary on his concerns using the vernacular that is used by many. 

Vernacular which isn't allowed under the rules he works under. I'm sure many of us posting similar would be in more trouble than he has. What does it say for his club, and the work their foundation will do?

[OriginalMrC]

8 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

Context is everything. The person in question is all over the press. It was basically a commentary on his concerns using the vernacular that is used by many. 

Ah when you put it like that it makes it perfectly fine

[The Phantom Horseman]

1 minute ago, StandOffHalf said:

Context is everything. The person in question is all over the press. It was basically a commentary on his concerns using the vernacular that is used by many. 

"a commentary on his concerns"?  No, he just used a derogatory slur for homosexual people as part of his criticism of an individual.

I'm surprised that you seem to feel comfortable defending the use of derogatory terms to describe people of a certain race, religion, sexual orientation etc. All the more so that you're defending someone who has attended multiple training seminars explaining why using that sort of language on social media is not ok.

 

[StandOffHalf]

1 minute ago, OriginalMrC said:

Ah when you put it like that it makes it perfectly fine

Distasteful, perhaps. Controversial, perhaps. Different people have different views.

[Dave T]

3 hours ago, StandOffHalf said:

Personal views can be sharply divergent from the zeitgeist and the expression of them isn't necessarily targeted at a specific individual. The person may be used to make a wider point.

I saw some of the tweets in question. They struck me as a reaction and a strongly-held concern, perhaps voiced in not the most judicious terms.

I don't want to shut up dissent and tell people to get in line.

There are things you say and do that have repercussions. Always have been and always will be.

[StandOffHalf]

3 minutes ago, The Phantom Horseman said:

"a commentary on his concerns"?  No, he just used a derogatory slur for homosexual people as part of his criticism of an individual.

I'm surprised that you seem to feel comfortable defending the use of derogatory terms to describe people of a certain race, religion, sexual orientation etc. All the more so that you're defending someone who has attended multiple training seminars explaining why using that sort of language on social media is not ok.

 

I mightn't like the way he expressed himself, but I think there's an element of classism here keeping people from a certain socio-economic background in line.

Edited March 28 by StandOffHalf

[StandOffHalf]

12 minutes ago, RigbyLuger said:

Vernacular which isn't allowed under the rules he works under. I'm sure many of us posting similar would be in more trouble than he has. What does it say for his club, and the work their foundation will do?

I hope that after Gregson completes any further rounds of re-education and brings his literacy up to the RFL standards that he expresses his concerns around these topics in a more eloquent and considered fashion.

We are dealing with RL, not international diplomacy. There can be an inherent gruffness and forthrightness, hehe.

[wilsontown]

7 minutes ago, StandOffHalf said:

I mightn't like the way he expressed himself, but I think there's an element of classism here keeping people from a certain socio-economic background in line.

I'm sorry but this is just patronising drivel.