Genuine question for all the lip reading experts - what did Flanagan say to Hardaker (to which he replied by blowing a kiss)?

Do we have a video?

You're wrong. Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced the admissibility of bad character evidence during a criminal trial, where someone's past convictions shows either a propensity to commit the offence charged, or where in answering questions the defendant has attacked someone else's character.

He is responsible for creating the situation in which his actions can be viewed as potentially homophobic, given that he was found guilty and banned for using homophobic abuse towards an official very recently.

He is responsible for shouting abuse at another player and preceding that abuse by blowing a kiss - it's not too much of a leap to link the two together, even for the horrid, witch-hunty RL fans who have a vendetta against poor innocent little Zak.

He is therefore entirely responsible for finding himself under investigation again and by extension, entirely responsible for any sanction that is applied if, on the balance of probability, he is found guilty.

And never let it be said of course than any of the people who have raised this issue just don't like to see homophobic incidents happen on the field - it must *always* be the case that they are just bitter, jealous fans of opposition teams who want to ruin his career; because in some peoples worlds, calling each 'puffs,' 'fags,' and 'bent c**ts' is just an everyday part of RL.

Quote: Big Jim Slade "The utter certainty of some people on here is bewildering. The more I watch it the less certain I am of what he's said (at the minute I think it might be 'effing b@llocks') and unless there's a clearer view or some audio then I'd be confident he can't be charged with anything. I've not really seen any Zakolytes (new word, what do you think?) saying he definitely didn't say it, but the online prosecutors seem to have absolute certainty. So, a challenge. If it's proved that Zak used the word 'Puff' then I shall donate £25 to both Joining Jack and whichever charity the Canal Siders recommend. If, however, he said anything else, then I challenge all those so certain of his guilt to put their money where their mouth is and do the same. If you're absolutely certain then there's really no risk involved, so there should be a lot of people take me up on this.'" This is exactly right. You can't even tell from the video how many syllables the last word has as he turned round. There are literally hundreds (and possibly thousands) of words he could have used. Also people really ought to watch this (pointed out I think by Gareth on Southstader last time around IIRC) to understand how their own opinion/prejudices about Hardaker will directly impact how they view the clip whether they like it or not: youtu.be/G-lN8vWm3m0

Quote: Big Jim Slade "The utter certainty of some people on here is bewildering. The more I watch it the less certain I am of what he's said (at the minute I think it might be 'effing b@llocks') and unless there's a clearer view or some audio then I'd be confident he can't be charged with anything. I've not really seen any Zakolytes (new word, what do you think?) saying he definitely didn't say it, but the online prosecutors seem to have absolute certainty. So, a challenge. If it's proved that Zak used the word 'Puff' then I shall donate £25 to both Joining Jack and whichever charity the Canal Siders recommend. If, however, he said anything else, then I challenge all those so certain of his guilt to put their money where their mouth is and do the same. If you're absolutely certain then there's really no risk involved, so there should be a lot of people take me up on this.'" This is exactly right. You can't even tell from the video how many syllables the last word has as he turned round. There are literally hundreds (and possibly thousands) of words he could have used. Also people really ought to watch this (pointed out I think by Gareth on Southstader last time around IIRC) to understand how their own opinion/prejudices about Hardaker will directly impact how they view the clip whether they like it or not: youtu.be/G-lN8vWm3m0

That is true, but in the context of the blown kiss and his past conduct, the number comes down to a very small number. He might have said "pussy", but that is arguably as homophobic, in the context of a blown kiss.

As for punishment, I would fine him. The last incident was worse. This is just crass because he seems irredeemably stupid. The two incidents together do not warrant someone missing out on effectively half a season, and certainly a punishment that exceeds someone knocking someone out with an illegal shoulder charge would be ridiculous.

I assume this is a reference to Jamie Peacock's comments, where I believe it was clear that he meant bent in the sense of 'dodgy' or 'corrupt' rather than homosexual. That's not necessarily an acceptable thing to say to a ref, but it's not homophobic either.

Also, you don't know for sure that Hardaker was even shouting abuse, all you know is that he was saying something. That's all. The fact that it was preceded with a blown kiss is neither here nor there, that's something that has happened in all sports and probably for all time. To leap from the fact that he's blown a kiss at another player to the presumption that whatever has followed out of his mouth is homophobic abuse is a pretty big one. Not as big as it would be for other players who have not been banned for this, but still a pretty big leap.

If the RFL are to ban him then it has to be because they have either a referee's word for it, an admission, or absolute and categorical proof - and based on what I've seen so far they (and we) don't have any of those.

Can we start a thread, petition or hashtag campaign to get Stevo sacked for referring to the "incident" as "handbags" ?

Perhaps if he does it again after being suspended from work and promising to learn from it.

The blown kiss is odd but hardly offensive in its own right (I'm not suggesting you're saying it is, though others have) - it was seemingly in response to whatever Flanagan had said but we don't have the video in context.

Good point, if we're all doing Detailed Political Correctness Analysis.

* a fight is a fight. People get proper punched.
* If it's not a proper fight, a popular term has become "handbags" (the original term was either "handbags at dawn" or "handbags at 5 paces" but has become shortened to just "handbags"icon_wink.gif.
* this is a direct reference to women, and takes it as read that the audience shares the mock view that
(a) women in general can't fight properly; and
(b) instead they typically just swing their handbags at each other , landing either no blows or ineffectual ones.

So Stevo saying that an incident was just "handbags" actually means that the fighting was ineffectual, like the proverbially incapable women, and not proper fighting like real men.

So Stevo referring to the conduct of players as "handbags" is sexist abuse in exactly the same was as calling a player a "puff" is homophobic abuse. Because both are deprecating in being intended to convey in an insulting manner that neither homosexual men nor women can fight properly, or that neither are posing any realistic physical threat, as compared to the implied prowess of the maker of the insult.

Does this mean we should get the message out say Stevo should follow Messrs. Keys and Gray?

He isnt responsible for people saying he said something he didnt. (which in this premise he didnt)

but that leap is unnecessary. There is no need to invent something he didnt say and then hold him responsible for the furore and approbrium levelled at him because of that mistake. If Hardaker didnt call Flanagan a Puff then it isnt hardaker who is responsible. It is those who incorrectly castigated him for something he didnt say.

there is no responsibility for the investigation. An investigation does not imply guilt. It simply says that we dont know what happens and we want to find out. Hardaker isnt responsible for people not knowing what happened. It may be the investigation finds him innocent, it may find him guilty. But he isnt responsible for someone thinking he did something wrong, then realising in fact, they were mistaken.

that works both ways. I dont want to see those things on an RL field. If Hardaker is guilty i would certainly support a strong punishment, as i did last time. However, i dont think it is wrong to question the motives of people who are so keen to cast judgement and so definite about punishment when the evidence by any reasonable measure, is pretty flimsy right now. You have to question why some are so keen to not only castigate him for something he may have done, but also castigate him for them being mistaken.

I was working on the assumption that he was found guilty of saying something homophobic. The blown kiss creates the context of the word. I think the RFL were right to send a message out last time, and even if he is shown to have not learned his lesson I still don't think it would merit half a season. You can break someone's jaw with a deliberate high shot and not get the equivalent of half a season. Zak may have pushed them into a corner if he has said it, which is why I think they'll judge that they can't be certain what was said. Gets everyone off the hook.

Congratulations guys the witch hunt we as successful. Not in the match report no complaints from the field, trial by social media. Hopefully we will all be eagle eyed for the up coming games and can try and find something another player has done. If hardaker doesn't get banned you get another bite at the cherry when we play Wigan.

Would be interested to know how it is reviewed. Balance of probability or beyond all reasonable doubt? No one to me can say 100% what hardaker said other than him and the people around him.

So why are you so upset he's being investigated? If he is investigated and is found no case to answer to, the case is put to bed. If he is found guilty, then he will be rightly punished for his actions. I don't see why some are so upset he is being investigated when they themselves don't know what he's said.

Players get charged regularly with incidents that the referee hasn't seen and the players haven't reported it. That's what the video review panel do.

Quote: Ferdy "Congratulations guys the witch hunt we as successful. Not in the match report no complaints from the field, trial by social media. '" I don't remember Leeds fans being so outraged about trial by social media here: His gesture during a controversial and compelling game outraged RL fans who swamped message boards with complaints. One wrote: “Silly boy – it’s things like this that make people dislike him and it will do nothing to endear him to the RL public.” www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-lea ... z3CAbbyoPX Was that in the match report? Any complaints from the field?

Quote: Ferdy "Congratulations guys the witch hunt we as successful. Not in the match report no complaints from the field, trial by social media. '" I don't remember Leeds fans being so outraged about trial by social media here: His gesture during a controversial and compelling game outraged RL fans who swamped message boards with complaints. One wrote: “Silly boy – it’s things like this that make people dislike him and it will do nothing to endear him to the RL public.” www.mirror.co.uk/sport/rugby-lea ... z3CAbbyoPX Was that in the match report? Any complaints from the field?