Quote: worthing wire "It's probable that I'll get a ban for this post, but here goes anyway (it's a forum and we're all adults, after all)In either scenario, Charnley appears to have taken offence at the word used by McGuire. Which is understandable, but this isn't a war crime FFS. The capacity for people to be offended in this day and age seems to get greater almost by the minute. Having said all this, McGuire has a fairly long rap sheet in the past, so it's not looking like he was a very sensible signing all told.'" So, I cant speak for the other mods, I'm not gonna ban you as for the most part you've covered what's being discussed. What I would challenge, is the highlighted bit, it's contrary in nature, you understand why he would get upset, but its not a war crime, and the list of things to get offended by grows longer. Have a quick gander at this link, https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/how- ... hate-crime It might give you a bit more information on what appears to have been a crime since 1986.

Quote: worthing wire "It's probable that I'll get a ban for this post, but here goes anyway (it's a forum and we're all adults, after all)In either scenario, Charnley appears to have taken offence at the word used by McGuire. Which is understandable, but this isn't a war crime FFS. The capacity for people to be offended in this day and age seems to get greater almost by the minute. Having said all this, McGuire has a fairly long rap sheet in the past, so it's not looking like he was a very sensible signing all told.'" So, I cant speak for the other mods, I'm not gonna ban you as for the most part you've covered what's being discussed. What I would challenge, is the highlighted bit, it's contrary in nature, you understand why he would get upset, but its not a war crime, and the list of things to get offended by grows longer. Have a quick gander at this link, https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/how- ... hate-crime It might give you a bit more information on what appears to have been a crime since 1986.

Having read the report the case against Maguire is as water tight as a colander. All seems to be about probability and who's actions seem more genuine rather than any evidence. All charnleys reaction and subsequent reporting could simply be down to him mishearing anything. This is not to say Maguire is innocent just the case against him boll9cks and I'm pretty sure in any court would be thrown out.

Thank you for that insight, Your Honour.

If you do have a law qualification, I apologise.

feel free to point out any evidence.

I read the judgement and the explanation of how they came to the decision. It's not a criminal conviction where the evidence is tested and guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, they believed it was pretty much beyond reasonable doubt. He's guilty and the club should own this now. We've been one of the leading lights in PDRL for heavens sake.

I read it too as I said. 'beyond reasonable doubt' , I'd take issue with that. I repeat there is no evidence at all and you haven't pointed out where there is. I'm not saying he's not guilty but from what I've read there is nothing other than one person's testimony which could simply put down to mis hearing something, there is nothing else to say he's guilty either.

Someone is a lair. Is it Charnley or McGuire?
It’s that simple.

Either a liar or misheard, who can tell for certainty.

He's not on trial in a criminal court. The burden of proof in civil law - on the balance of probabilities - would apply instead. They have considered testimony of everyone involved and concluded on balance that he said what he's accused of saying.

Hence why I said the case is as water tight as a colander and went onto say it would be thrown out of a court. The decision has been decided on who they believe the most rather than on evidence of which there is none. I will repeat once again I'm not saying Maguire is innocent, I'm saying there is no evidence to say he's guilty and we work on the principle that we are innocent until proven guilty. As I want Maguire gone as I am far from impressed by his performance on the field and the fact he takes up a quota spot and lots of dosh in suits me that we have a reason to get rid but the case against him is bollox.

Rugby league has gone woke

12 games for hurty words.

Get a grip.

Not true. The tribunal uses a burden higher than “balance of probabilities” but below the criminal burden “beyond a reasonable doubt” however thy specifically refer to using the higher burden in this particular case.

It wasn't a trial, it was a hearing under RFL Operational Rules. The crux of the matter being that Charnley was more of an "impressive and credible witness" than McGuire was. We can only speculate as to how they arrived at this conclusion, that tipped the balance of probabilities towards Charnley's claim. What we do know is that McGuire has already been charged with the same offence, after the preseason match with Leigh that was, IIRC, witnessed by match officials Marcus Griffiths. Amone of Leigh was cleared of a similar charge made against him, as only McGuire made an official allegation. Matt Dufty witnessed the comments made by Amone, but didn't want to make an official allegation after the match had finished.

I'm not defending McGuire, but he seems to have been treated unfairly in comparison to Amone. The club have now little option but to terminate McGuire's contract.

Firing McGuire might be easier said than done, because it would leave them open to legal action from him IF he decided to fight the disciplinary verdict in a higher court (and let's face it, that evidence wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny in court).