All the more reason not to air the grievance until it has been investigated.

They’ve now deleted their original tweet and statement and replaced it with a pretty much identical tweet and statement

I understand naturally that a club would support their player but that statement by London in farcical. Any respect I had for them has gone throwing one of our own under the bus they way they have. Hope they rot in the championship for some time.

Trying to save face.

That’s, unfortunately, a problem with the charging system. Players get changed then a hearing takes place. It’s how it works, rightly or wrongly.

Glad to see he has been cleared. I do believe that the right process was followed here as incidents of abuse do need to be taken seriously and investigated (see my previous post on this) in a fair way for both the accuser and the accused. I agree with others that this hasn't necessarily been malicious on the London players part and may have been a case of them mishearing something. However, I am very disappointed with London's reaction to this. I am also very disappointed that there is very little on social media saying the charges have been dropped. They were very quick to report on the allegation and would no doubt be having a field day right now if conclusive evidence had found Ese Ese guilty.

I think overall though, this incident highlights that the way these incidents are handled needs to be looked at as there is a duty of care needed towards the players. Sky should never have revealed on air what the incident was whilst the RFL and MRP need to keep a lid on such charges until after a full investigation has been held (including appeals). They have a responsibility to protect the players whether it's the accuser or the accused. Herman's name was tarnished over this last couple of weeks because of how that was handled and that wasn't right at all.

If you think back to last season Josh Maguire (Warrington) got 8 games I think for calling an opponent a 'spaz' which is a childish offensive word, 8 games though?

The point I'm making is that maybe these NRL guys coming over have a different culture/mentality about what we perceive as acceptable or not.
Herman's obviously said something because Grix alludes to the fact that EseEse didn't think what he'd said was offensive,
Another thing aswell which you lot haven't mentioned, why would London submit evidence against a player that contradicts there original evidence. It doesn't make sense, but London obviously feel the RFL have acted wrongly

badly managed from start to finish but this is the rfl what do you expect?

There wasn't any original evidence though was they? As far as I am aware, the timeline of events is that the ref placed it on report for further investigation and then the MRP couldn't find anything when reviewing the footage so put it in London's hands to supply evidence. London supplied evidence last week which resulted in Ese Ese being charged with an appeal set for tonight. However since then, the RFL have received further evidence (enhanced audio from the referee's mic) that contradicted London's evidence to the point that they felt it exonerated Ese Ese.

London obviously feel aggrieved and are backing their player but what is going to come of them forcing this exactly? What are they hoping to achieve? We don't even know what evidence they submitted do we? But the audio contradicts it whatever it was and contradicted it in such a way that the RFL were happy to drop all charges which makes it sound like it's pretty conclusive. If it is a cultural/mentality/perception thing then I think that just opens a can of worms because anything London say supporting that viewpoint, Hull (and the RFL) can fire back in their direction from the other viewpoint.

Such a strange situation.

I'm guessing that whatever he has said isn't deemed as offensive hence the matter is now closed. If london take any further action they should be seen as bringing the process into disrepute

Despite all the evidence in Ese Ese's favour, it's a suprise to you as Rovers fans, still going against him.