There are 3 possible scenarios here.

1: Clubb said what is alleged.

If this is the case he used a term which describes a group of people who’s ethnicity is Polynesian as an insult. There is no other way to interpret that other than racism and he should be dealt with very harshly, IMO his contract should be terminated.

2: Clubb said something else and it was mis-heard as what was alleged.

He’s stuck between a rock and a hard place if this is the case. I would think a large number of people will not believe him and when he returns to the field he will be a target for a number of players. There will also be doubt in the minds of some of his team mates putting Clubb and Wigan in a difficult position.

3: Savellio made it up.

I really hope (and don’t think) this is the case. If it is that’s probably worse than the alleged comment.



Whatever has happened I don’t think there is a positive outcome for Clubb. I’d be surprised to see him in a Wigan shirt again.

According to the law, a person in this country is innocent until proven guilty.

Judging by many of the comments on the social media including this website about the alleged racist incident in the Hull game, it would appear that is no longer the case!

Until a judgement is made by the RFL, people should observe and keep their opinions to themselves!

Again - it wasn't "Polynesian" that was the insult. Savelio[i is[/i Polynesian. Similarly if someone was called a "stupid Asian ****" it's not "Asian" that's the insult.

If Clubb called Savelio a "stupid Polynesian ****" he's saying that Savelio is stupid and a **** for [ibeing[/i Polynesian.

Since the advent of social media the adage of “innocent till proven guilty” has gone out the window.

He says whilst giving his opinion

What law would that be then? Is he accused of a crime for him to be "guilty" or "not guilty"?

I'm not condoning racism (my partner is mixed raced) but the words stupid and c**t are used all the time in my industry and that's before brew on a Monday morning and non of the lads including me think its particularly offensive as we have thick skin and its just banter.

But we live in a society of easily offended snowflakes

You say that he's calling him a stupid **** for BEING Polynesian - More likely it's an AND statement (if it was said at all?) You are stupid AND Polynesian AND a c***..

I know it's different, because I have so-called white privilege, but if someone called me a stupid English/white c***, the ONLY word I would take exception to (and only then if it thrown in anger) would be the last word.

Even the final insult is not necessarily an insult (although if it was said, it was 100% meant as the main insult in this case).
As Billy Connolly said - It's just a word.
Right down to asking "Who's that c*** with the pope?"

Just like one of my clients almost always greets me with "Ey up, f***er".

The only thing I don't understand is WHY people need to add the middle descriptor?
Stupid c*** works perfectly by itself.
(Although you do hear a lot of non-racial/location-based words in that position - Ginger, fat, etc..)

Being accused is not the same as being charged.

I'm well aware of that.

People are saying "innocent until proven guilty" but that's not relevant because he isn't on trial for breaking the law where that applies. People can have an opinion on it.



Conveniently you've left the actual part of the sentence that is the issue. Savelio isn't annoyed because he was called stupid or a c**t, it's because he alleges his race was used alongside it.

Snowflakes? You're a walking cliche.

[*]

Racism is against the law

So if your partner was racially abused you would ignore it? Would you view any offence taken by your partner as easily offended snowflake behaviour?

The offensive comments have allegedly been made with added words identifying someone’s race

Warry 12 Rovers 12 good game on lads, if rugby league is your penchant

Lol much better context EC