Which is what I said, as for your underlined sentence on my post, If he's innocent he'll walk away a free man, if he's found guilty he'll get the sentence appropriate to the crime or should do, nothing left to say on the matter till the middle of next month then everybody and their dog can have they're 2 penneth.

And nothing at all to balance your opinion in terms of what if the other party were maliciously not telling the truth??.

Again it's best to stick to Rugby matters on here, although given your last post demanding "proof" and "evidence" of all I say then I hold very little hope of that happening......

I don't have an opinion one way or the other,, and I don't do what if's, that's why I said it's best to wait till the trial and all the relevant facts from both sides come out.

I'm not sure what your getting at here, just explain to me where I've demanded proof and evidence and just what is it you hold very little hope of it happening?

Again, what I’ve written is just factual.
I’ve not expressed an opinion on whether he is guilty or not.
I’ve made two points about Gelling:
1. He’s due to stand trial for GBH.
2. If convicted (notice the IF) of the offence he is accused of, he might get a custodial sentence.
Both of these points are facts, not opinions..

I guess Jack De Belin will be the test case for this, IF he is not found guilty.

No, but that’s exactly what happens in Aus with the Integrity Unit.. The ‘no fault stand-down’ policy is exactly this.

Perhaps worth remembering that the other party isn’t the one facing trial and avoid the victim blaming.
To reach this stage, the debate isn’t about whether a crime has been committed. It’s about whether there is enough evidence to convict a particular individual of perpetrating it.

Honestly, I’m unsure.
One one hand, at the moment he’s an innocent man; on the other, he’s facing trial for a serious offence.
My original point was that I don’t think Leigh should have signed a player facing an imminent trial for GBH, and that it’s not the image the game should be promoting.

I'll leave it there then.

Ther is nothing wrong with accepting that there are different perspectives!
Of course, at times we do restrict the employment of people accused of criminal offences. Whether that’s appropriate for an RL player, I’m not sure.

What I am sure of is that some kind of Integrity Unit in the UK game, capable of suspending players for off-field behaviour, would be a welcome introduction.

I dont think he should play no.

Terrible decision all round and again, makes a mockery of our sport.

Like beating up women, drink driving, homophobia, taking illicit drugs or bashing students? Cant get a job elsewhere because no one will employ you? No worries, come to super league in England, we are desperate. Never played rugby before? Doesnt matter, as long as you tick on of the aforementioned boxes we will have you

Agreed.

I would rather Leigh had searched harder & longer for a player of calibre & without the negative baggage.

I work in child protection and probably the biggest issue we take up is domestic violence probably over 50% of cases.

I liaise with the police, women’s refuges , probation etc on a daily basis. The cps don’t take cases to court unless they have a high percentage of getting a conviction. So they do not think there is evidence , they have to pass a test which is , on the evidence available is their a realistic proposition that the court will convict. They have to be satisfied the evidence is there and strong enough to convince a judge and jury they will convict the perpetrator. The more serious the offence the more they have to satisfy themselves that they are likely to get a conviction


As this case is in very much in the public domain hence my link to a newspaper article there are many others it my view it does diminish the game and makes Leigh look bad that they are prepared to give a short term contract to someone because they think he may not be around for along contract does suggest that they are aware of the issues but have chosen to ignore them for some short term benefit.. it is just plain wrong