FORUMS FORUMS






RLFANS.COM
Celebrating
25 years service to
the Rugby League
Community!

   WWW.RLFANS.COM • View topic - Julian Assange
::Off-topic discussion.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman9565No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 08 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
12th Dec 19 13:0211th Dec 19 22:00LINK
Milestone Posts
5000
10000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
10 mins walk from Suncorp Stadium

Re: Julian Assange : Thu Aug 30, 2012 12:30 am  
Yeah but they're only doing that to sucker Assange into going back to Sweden to face a kangaroo court followed by immediate extradition to Guantanamo Bay, waterboarding and execution.

Smokey's bonkers - most of his arguments are factually wrong and continually ignoring the possibility of serious sexual offences as having a bearing on what should happen to Assange is morally repugnant.

Mintball's also right - as far as I can tell the right wing is home to far more people likely to belittle the importance of sexual offences, especially where the rights of women come into conflict with their peculiar, religously-driven views.
RankPostsTeam
Club Owner22777
JoinedServiceReputation
May 24 200619 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
26th Jun 20 13:357th Feb 18 22:08LINK
Milestone Posts
20000
25000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Signature
//www.pngnrlbid.com

bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:
Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.


vastman wrote:
My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.

Re: Julian Assange : Sat Sep 01, 2012 1:01 pm  
Mintball wrote:
WTF?

Poor little St Julian is being "harassed", is he?
Maybe, maybe not. it would be easy to find out by producing some evidence.
And I know that we havea tradition in the UK that you're innocent until proven guilty, but clearly you've already decided that even if a court were to find him guilty, he'd be innocent anyway, as it would be a "miscarriage of justice".

Care to share the films you must have seen of what went on then?
No i havent. Dont lie.
RankPostsTeam
Club Owner22777
JoinedServiceReputation
May 24 200619 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
26th Jun 20 13:357th Feb 18 22:08LINK
Milestone Posts
20000
25000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Signature
//www.pngnrlbid.com

bUsTiNyAbALLs wrote:
Do not converse with me you filthy minded deviant.


vastman wrote:
My rage isn't impotent luv, I'm frothing at the mouth actually.

Re: Julian Assange : Sat Sep 01, 2012 1:36 pm  
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
Disingenuous tosh, he did a runner rather than face questions, he didn't even tell his lawyer he was going. At the first hearing, his lawyer, presumably hoping nobody would find out, made a false statement that the prosecutor had made no effort to interview Assange, when in fact he had even arranged a provisional date for interview. The judge said the statement was "a deliberate attempt to mislead the court." It came over loud and clear that Assange knew he was wanted for interview, and that he knew if he prevaricated much longer, then he would be arrested, and so he fled.
There is nothing disingenuous about it, it is fact. It is disingenuous to present your conclusions as fact.
More tosh. How can it be unfair for the Swedish state to ask a person accused of sexual offences inclusing rape to come in for questioning? Are you serious?
There is nothing wrong with them asking. There is plenty wrong with them demanding if they havent
Your "argument" here is mainly based on your inability to accept that there should be an EAW. As Parliament however passed it into UK law, you will have to live with it, and if you want, campaign against it.
again yes.
Having said which, we do have to be satisified that what the Swedes are doing is right and lawful, as they and we must comply both with European law and the EAW, and we must also comply with English law in dealing with the case. If we do, then ipso facto there is no question of the result being "unjust".
no it doesnt. Had it had to comply with British standards of evidence there would be no question of it being unjust.

Anyway, before you make too big a fool of yourself, this aspect was, in fact, exhaustively gone through by the QBD at the penultimate appeal stage. The Court considered the argument about the fairness and accuracy of the description of the conduct alleged, and perhaps you ought to actually read the judgment instead of making spurious claims. The link to that particular report is:-
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html&query=assange&method=boolean
..and the relevant section starts at para.55, and goes on to para 127. (Yes, over SEVENTY PARAGRAPHS of detailed consideration of the evidential aspects).
That isnt an examination of the evidence. It is a consideration of whether the allegations constitute an offence in this country.

Increasingly concentrated tosh:
(a) there has been no miscarriage of justice from the consequences of which we need to protect him. If you are saying that we shouldn't extradite him because there might somehow in the future be some unspecified miscarriage of justice in Sweden, then you must be high on something.
Yet that is a test applied to the extradition of people to most other countries.
(b) "use of the law to harass an individual"?? Look, there is only one issue - he is wanted for questioning for sexual offences including rape. Unless you can make some sort of coherent case for that being "use of the law to harass an individual" then you have to concede this is rubbish.
No, and no. We would not extradite a suspect to certain regimes, as we would have reasonable grounds to suspect that they may (for example) be tortured or otherwise abused. That is sound and right. However, in general terms, we do not have any such concerns about Sweden; and in the particular case, no grounds have been advanced as to why we should believe, or even suspect, that any such would befall him there.
It is completely befuddled thinking to say "well yes, there is no specific reason or ground to suspect this, but . . . well, you never know, they still just might".If they did, it would be in no way our responsibility, as we have absolutely no reason to believe they will.
We should have those concerns about every country, including our own.
Of course it would have been relevant!! Remove your blinkers! The EAW is valid if it was issued for prosecution in Sweden. If he could show that it was NOT issued for prosecution in Sweden, but for some other reason, then obviously he would get it thrown out!. It WAS ARGUED IN THE COURTS - AS PER THE LINK I HAVE GIVEN YOU ABOVE. The fact is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE of any such scenario, so the reason it was "not argued" any further in the Supreme Court is because it is a non-argument! Unlike you, Assange and his lawyers know when the horse they are flogging has died.
for the same reasons as you accept we shouldnt extradite some people, to some other nations.

There IS no injustice though. In abstract theory, in the unlikely event that all these hypothetical things came to pass, but surely even you can see that no law will work if it can be defeated just by writing down a list of random things that "might" happen, without having any evidence, at all, to back up why anyone should think they actually might happen?
Except it isnt abstract, it is a real, and valid concern that even you have about some countries.
Not in the least. As stated in our courts, a domestic warrant for Assange's arrest was upheld on 24th November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW. Therefore the question of "whether the evidence stacks up" i.e. whether he will be charged is one which will be decided once the Swedish authorities complete their investigation. Not now. It is therefore absurd to suggest that they should prove their case to us, when they have not yet decided whether he is going to be charged, and I think you surely know this.
If they want us to extradite him they should.

The bottom line here is that there is no material whatsoever upon which any court could rule, or even suspect, that extraditing Assange will lead to oppression or injustice, and your obvious mistrust of the EAW system does not alter the fact that no such thing has ever happened. I cite :-

(1) The accused, Mr. Assange: In the February 2012 appeal in the QBD, it was recorded that Assange did not pursue the allegation made before the Senior District Judge that there had been abuse in issuing the EAW for a collateral purpose or that there had otherwise been an abuse of process. Do you note that these issues WERE relevant in the English courts? And that if he HAD maintained these issues, they would have been considered? So can you please stop your persistent false claims that even if some such chicanery was afoot, we wouldn't look at it. Of course we would!
Not on the basis of a simple allegation we wouldnt. There would need to be a standard of corroborating evidence. The word of one man would not be enough. And this is correct, it would be nonsense for us to NOT extradite Mr Assange simply because he accused the Swedish government of nefarious intention. I have no problem with us extraditing Mr Assange in spite of any accusation he may levy but be unable to back up with evidence. I would just apply the same principle to us extraditing Mr Assange.


(2) the 30 September 2011 report to the Home Secretary by a Committee chaired by the Rt Hon Sir Scott Baker which actually reviewed the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements, and said that it was not aware of any cases in which EAWs issued by designated prosecuting authorities has led to oppression or injustice.

Mind you, they were probably not told that, based on absolutely nothing at all, some keyboard warrior named SmokeyTA nevertheless knows better, and feared that one day it might. Such a compelling argument would surely have persuaded them to recommend scrapping the whole thing.

What kind of naive thinking leads someone to think our laws shouldnt build in protections against possibilities 'which might be' an abuse of process?

What kind of nonsense are you arguing here? That because something hasnt happened, it can never happen and we should forget about it as a possibility? That because it hasnt been used to lead to provable cases of oppression or injustice it never ever could be?
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
Disingenuous tosh, he did a runner rather than face questions, he didn't even tell his lawyer he was going. At the first hearing, his lawyer, presumably hoping nobody would find out, made a false statement that the prosecutor had made no effort to interview Assange, when in fact he had even arranged a provisional date for interview. The judge said the statement was "a deliberate attempt to mislead the court." It came over loud and clear that Assange knew he was wanted for interview, and that he knew if he prevaricated much longer, then he would be arrested, and so he fled.
There is nothing disingenuous about it, it is fact. It is disingenuous to present your conclusions as fact.
More tosh. How can it be unfair for the Swedish state to ask a person accused of sexual offences inclusing rape to come in for questioning? Are you serious?
There is nothing wrong with them asking. There is plenty wrong with them demanding if they havent
Your "argument" here is mainly based on your inability to accept that there should be an EAW. As Parliament however passed it into UK law, you will have to live with it, and if you want, campaign against it.
again yes.
Having said which, we do have to be satisified that what the Swedes are doing is right and lawful, as they and we must comply both with European law and the EAW, and we must also comply with English law in dealing with the case. If we do, then ipso facto there is no question of the result being "unjust".
no it doesnt. Had it had to comply with British standards of evidence there would be no question of it being unjust.

Anyway, before you make too big a fool of yourself, this aspect was, in fact, exhaustively gone through by the QBD at the penultimate appeal stage. The Court considered the argument about the fairness and accuracy of the description of the conduct alleged, and perhaps you ought to actually read the judgment instead of making spurious claims. The link to that particular report is:-
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/2849.html&query=assange&method=boolean
..and the relevant section starts at para.55, and goes on to para 127. (Yes, over SEVENTY PARAGRAPHS of detailed consideration of the evidential aspects).
That isnt an examination of the evidence. It is a consideration of whether the allegations constitute an offence in this country.

Increasingly concentrated tosh:
(a) there has been no miscarriage of justice from the consequences of which we need to protect him. If you are saying that we shouldn't extradite him because there might somehow in the future be some unspecified miscarriage of justice in Sweden, then you must be high on something.
Yet that is a test applied to the extradition of people to most other countries.
(b) "use of the law to harass an individual"?? Look, there is only one issue - he is wanted for questioning for sexual offences including rape. Unless you can make some sort of coherent case for that being "use of the law to harass an individual" then you have to concede this is rubbish.
No, and no. We would not extradite a suspect to certain regimes, as we would have reasonable grounds to suspect that they may (for example) be tortured or otherwise abused. That is sound and right. However, in general terms, we do not have any such concerns about Sweden; and in the particular case, no grounds have been advanced as to why we should believe, or even suspect, that any such would befall him there.
It is completely befuddled thinking to say "well yes, there is no specific reason or ground to suspect this, but . . . well, you never know, they still just might".If they did, it would be in no way our responsibility, as we have absolutely no reason to believe they will.
We should have those concerns about every country, including our own.
Of course it would have been relevant!! Remove your blinkers! The EAW is valid if it was issued for prosecution in Sweden. If he could show that it was NOT issued for prosecution in Sweden, but for some other reason, then obviously he would get it thrown out!. It WAS ARGUED IN THE COURTS - AS PER THE LINK I HAVE GIVEN YOU ABOVE. The fact is that THERE IS NO EVIDENCE of any such scenario, so the reason it was "not argued" any further in the Supreme Court is because it is a non-argument! Unlike you, Assange and his lawyers know when the horse they are flogging has died.
for the same reasons as you accept we shouldnt extradite some people, to some other nations.

There IS no injustice though. In abstract theory, in the unlikely event that all these hypothetical things came to pass, but surely even you can see that no law will work if it can be defeated just by writing down a list of random things that "might" happen, without having any evidence, at all, to back up why anyone should think they actually might happen?
Except it isnt abstract, it is a real, and valid concern that even you have about some countries.
Not in the least. As stated in our courts, a domestic warrant for Assange's arrest was upheld on 24th November 2010 by the Court of Appeal, Sweden. An arrest warrant was issued on the basis that Julian Assange is accused with probable cause of the offences outlined on the EAW. Therefore the question of "whether the evidence stacks up" i.e. whether he will be charged is one which will be decided once the Swedish authorities complete their investigation. Not now. It is therefore absurd to suggest that they should prove their case to us, when they have not yet decided whether he is going to be charged, and I think you surely know this.
If they want us to extradite him they should.

The bottom line here is that there is no material whatsoever upon which any court could rule, or even suspect, that extraditing Assange will lead to oppression or injustice, and your obvious mistrust of the EAW system does not alter the fact that no such thing has ever happened. I cite :-

(1) The accused, Mr. Assange: In the February 2012 appeal in the QBD, it was recorded that Assange did not pursue the allegation made before the Senior District Judge that there had been abuse in issuing the EAW for a collateral purpose or that there had otherwise been an abuse of process. Do you note that these issues WERE relevant in the English courts? And that if he HAD maintained these issues, they would have been considered? So can you please stop your persistent false claims that even if some such chicanery was afoot, we wouldn't look at it. Of course we would!
Not on the basis of a simple allegation we wouldnt. There would need to be a standard of corroborating evidence. The word of one man would not be enough. And this is correct, it would be nonsense for us to NOT extradite Mr Assange simply because he accused the Swedish government of nefarious intention. I have no problem with us extraditing Mr Assange in spite of any accusation he may levy but be unable to back up with evidence. I would just apply the same principle to us extraditing Mr Assange.


(2) the 30 September 2011 report to the Home Secretary by a Committee chaired by the Rt Hon Sir Scott Baker which actually reviewed the United Kingdom's extradition arrangements, and said that it was not aware of any cases in which EAWs issued by designated prosecuting authorities has led to oppression or injustice.

Mind you, they were probably not told that, based on absolutely nothing at all, some keyboard warrior named SmokeyTA nevertheless knows better, and feared that one day it might. Such a compelling argument would surely have persuaded them to recommend scrapping the whole thing.

What kind of naive thinking leads someone to think our laws shouldnt build in protections against possibilities 'which might be' an abuse of process?

What kind of nonsense are you arguing here? That because something hasnt happened, it can never happen and we should forget about it as a possibility? That because it hasnt been used to lead to provable cases of oppression or injustice it never ever could be?
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 17 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
2nd May 24 20:2424th Oct 19 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
MACS0647-JD
Signature
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total

Re: Julian Assange : Tue Sep 04, 2012 3:02 pm  
Our good mate the President of Ecuador has spoken up in support of Jules by telling the world that what Assange did "would not be a crime on 90% of the planet"

Asked how allegedly using force to begin intercourse could not be a crime, he reportedly answered:

"A woman he was staying with? Sleeping together in the same bed? "

There you are, ladies. Once in bed, like it or lump it :shock:
Our good mate the President of Ecuador has spoken up in support of Jules by telling the world that what Assange did "would not be a crime on 90% of the planet"

Asked how allegedly using force to begin intercourse could not be a crime, he reportedly answered:

"A woman he was staying with? Sleeping together in the same bed? "

There you are, ladies. Once in bed, like it or lump it :shock:
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
All Time Great47951No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 10 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
6th Aug 17 19:0327th Jul 17 17:56LINK
Milestone Posts
40000
50000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Die Metropole
Signature
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller

"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant

"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde

The Voluptuous Manifesto – thoughts on all sorts of stuff.

Re: Julian Assange : Wed Sep 05, 2012 8:01 am  
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
Our good mate the President of Ecuador has spoken up in support of Jules by telling the world that what Assange did "would not be a crime on 90% of the planet"

Asked how allegedly using force to begin intercourse could not be a crime, he reportedly answered:

"A woman he was staying with? Sleeping together in the same bed? "

There you are, ladies. Once in bed, like it or lump it :shock:


Actually, I was rather surprised to see that, in one or two countries, I'd be classed as a rapist myself on the basis of 'ask before each episode of actual shagging'. It is remarkably easy to get a man 'interested' even when he is asleep. Thankfully, in the UK, apparently a woman cannot be convicted of rape.

However, this entire discussion is ridiculous since, even if one disagrees with such a definition of rape, it is not the only thing that Assange stands accused of.
Ferocious Aardvark wrote:
Our good mate the President of Ecuador has spoken up in support of Jules by telling the world that what Assange did "would not be a crime on 90% of the planet"

Asked how allegedly using force to begin intercourse could not be a crime, he reportedly answered:

"A woman he was staying with? Sleeping together in the same bed? "

There you are, ladies. Once in bed, like it or lump it :shock:


Actually, I was rather surprised to see that, in one or two countries, I'd be classed as a rapist myself on the basis of 'ask before each episode of actual shagging'. It is remarkably easy to get a man 'interested' even when he is asleep. Thankfully, in the UK, apparently a woman cannot be convicted of rape.

However, this entire discussion is ridiculous since, even if one disagrees with such a definition of rape, it is not the only thing that Assange stands accused of.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
All Time Great47951No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 10 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
6th Aug 17 19:0327th Jul 17 17:56LINK
Milestone Posts
40000
50000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Die Metropole
Signature
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller

"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant

"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde

The Voluptuous Manifesto – thoughts on all sorts of stuff.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Sep 07, 2012 8:43 am  
Presumably, whoever's tweeting for Wikileaks is a bit bored, as they've tweeted a link to a two-year-old story, about something that happened, err, two years ago, but without mentioning it's a two-year-old story.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach10530
JoinedServiceReputation
Nov 08 200519 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
14th Jun 20 19:3514th Jun 20 19:35LINK
Milestone Posts
10000
15000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Leeds
Signature
King Monkey wrote:
Maybe a spell in prison would do Graham good.

At least he'd lose his virginity.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:21 pm  
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
All Time Great47951No
Team
Selected
JoinedServiceReputation
May 10 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
6th Aug 17 19:0327th Jul 17 17:56LINK
Milestone Posts
40000
50000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Die Metropole
Signature
"You are working for Satan." Kirkstaller

"Dare to know!" Immanuel Kant

"Do not take life too seriously. You will never get out of it alive" Elbert Hubbard

"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." Oscar Wilde

The Voluptuous Manifesto – thoughts on all sorts of stuff.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:26 pm  


Yes.

Date of story? 2010.


Yes.

Date of story? 2010.
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
International Chairman28357
JoinedServiceReputation
Feb 17 200223 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
2nd May 24 20:2424th Oct 19 15:32LINK
Milestone Posts
25000
30000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
MACS0647-JD
Signature
Last edited by Ferocious Aardvark on stardate Jun 26, 3013 11:27 am, edited 48,562,867,458,300,023 times in total

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Sep 07, 2012 1:45 pm  


Meanwhile in other news, Mafeking has been relieved. :lol:


Meanwhile in other news, Mafeking has been relieved. :lol:
User avatar
RankPostsTeam
Player Coach10530
JoinedServiceReputation
Nov 08 200519 yearsN/A
OnlineLast PostLast Page
14th Jun 20 19:3514th Jun 20 19:35LINK
Milestone Posts
10000
15000
Milestone Years
0510 1520 2530
Location
Leeds
Signature
King Monkey wrote:
Maybe a spell in prison would do Graham good.

At least he'd lose his virginity.

Re: Julian Assange : Fri Sep 07, 2012 2:08 pm  
:lol: :lol:
PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 256 guests

REPLY

Subject: 
Message:
   
Please note using apple style emoji's can result in posting failures.
Use the FULL EDITOR to better format content or upload images, be notified of replies etc...

Return to The Sin Bin


RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
9s
Rumours and signings v9
NSW
28912
18s
Film game
karetaker
5916
24s
Recruitment rumours and links
Smiffy27
3555
50s
2025 Recruitment
NorthlandBul
229
55s
Ground Improvements
Spookisback
243
1m
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
Irregs#16
8
1m
New signings
WelshGiant
13
1m
2025 Shirt
Zig
28
2m
Game - Song Titles
Boss Hog
40837
3m
ALL NEW 49ERS ERA LEEDS UTD THREAD
Jack Burton
2642
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Friendlies
Deadcowboys1
3
TODAY
Sam Luckley likely to miss the beginning of new season
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Frankie Halton sign new deal
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
Irregs#16
8
TODAY
Trinity shop Sunday opening
phe13
1
TODAY
Tyler Craig
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Matty Ashurst testimonial dinner
Big lads mat
1
TODAY
2025 Squad Numbers
Jake the Peg
27
TODAY
England Women Las Vegas train-on squad
RLFANS News
1
TODAY
Quiz night
H.G.S.A
1
TODAY
Co-Captains for 2025
Vic Mackie
19
TODAY
Cornwall has a new owner
CM Punk
2
TODAY
Callum Shaw
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Squad Numbers
phe13
4
TODAY
Rhinos squad numbers
Rixy
1
TODAY
Squad numbers
Warrior Wing
8
TODAY
Mat Crowther pre season update
Dunkirk Spir
1
TODAY
Mike Cooper podcast
matt_wire
21
TODAY
Shirt reveal coming soon
Trojan Horse
50
TODAY
Opening Championship and League One Fixtures for 2025 Released
RLFANS News
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS
RLFANS Match Centre
Matches on TV
Thu 13th Feb
SL
20:00
Wigan-Leigh
Fri 14th Feb
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Castleford
SL
20:00
Catalans-Hull FC
Sat 15th Feb
SL
15:00
Leeds - Wakefield
SL
17:30
St.Helens-Salford
Sun 16th Feb
SL
15:00
Huddersfield-Warrington
Thu 20th Feb
SL
20:00
Wakefield - Hull KR
Fri 21st Feb
SL
20:00
Warrington-Catalans
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Wigan
Sat 22nd Feb
SL
15:00
Salford-Leeds
SL
20:00
Castleford-St.Helens
Sun 23rd Feb
SL
14:30
Leigh-Huddersfield
Fri 28th Feb
SL
20:00
Huddersfield-Hull FC
SL
20:00
Hull KR-Salford
SL
20:00
Leigh-Catalans
Sat 1st Mar
SL
14:30
Wakefield - St.Helens
SL
21:30
Wigan-Warrington
Sun 2nd Mar
SL
15:00
Leeds-Castleford
Thu 6th Mar
SL
20:00
Hull FC-Leigh
Fri 7th Mar
SL
20:00
Castleford-Salford
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Mens Betfred Super League XXVIII ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wigan 29 768 338 430 48
Hull KR 29 731 344 387 44
Warrington 29 769 351 418 42
Leigh 29 580 442 138 33
Salford 28 556 561 -5 32
St.Helens 28 618 411 207 30
 
Catalans 27 475 427 48 30
Leeds 27 530 488 42 28
Huddersfield 27 468 658 -190 20
Castleford 27 425 735 -310 15
Hull FC 27 328 894 -566 6
LondonB 27 317 916 -599 6
This is an inplay table and live positions can change.
Betfred Championship 2024 ROUND : 1
 PLDFADIFFPTS
Wakefield 27 1032 275 757 52
Toulouse 26 765 388 377 37
Bradford 28 723 420 303 36
York 29 695 501 194 32
Widnes 27 561 502 59 29
Featherstone 27 634 525 109 28
 
Sheffield 26 626 526 100 28
Doncaster 26 498 619 -121 25
Halifax 26 509 650 -141 22
Batley 26 422 591 -169 22
Swinton 28 484 676 -192 20
Barrow 25 442 720 -278 19
Whitehaven 25 437 826 -389 18
Dewsbury 27 348 879 -531 4
Hunslet 1 6 10 -4 0
RLFANS Recent Posts
FORUM
LAST
POST
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
FORUM
LAST
VIEW
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
9s
Rumours and signings v9
NSW
28912
18s
Film game
karetaker
5916
24s
Recruitment rumours and links
Smiffy27
3555
50s
2025 Recruitment
NorthlandBul
229
55s
Ground Improvements
Spookisback
243
1m
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
Irregs#16
8
1m
New signings
WelshGiant
13
1m
2025 Shirt
Zig
28
2m
Game - Song Titles
Boss Hog
40837
3m
ALL NEW 49ERS ERA LEEDS UTD THREAD
Jack Burton
2642
FORUM
NEW
TOPICS
TOPIC
POSTER
POSTS
TODAY
Friendlies
Deadcowboys1
3
TODAY
Sam Luckley likely to miss the beginning of new season
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Frankie Halton sign new deal
Huddersfield
1
TODAY
Transfer chatter for 2025 - New Dec 1st tamper date
Irregs#16
8
TODAY
Trinity shop Sunday opening
phe13
1
TODAY
Tyler Craig
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Matty Ashurst testimonial dinner
Big lads mat
1
TODAY
2025 Squad Numbers
Jake the Peg
27
TODAY
England Women Las Vegas train-on squad
RLFANS News
1
TODAY
Quiz night
H.G.S.A
1
TODAY
Co-Captains for 2025
Vic Mackie
19
TODAY
Cornwall has a new owner
CM Punk
2
TODAY
Callum Shaw
Wanderer
1
TODAY
Squad Numbers
phe13
4
TODAY
Rhinos squad numbers
Rixy
1
TODAY
Squad numbers
Warrior Wing
8
TODAY
Mat Crowther pre season update
Dunkirk Spir
1
TODAY
Mike Cooper podcast
matt_wire
21
TODAY
Shirt reveal coming soon
Trojan Horse
50
TODAY
Opening Championship and League One Fixtures for 2025 Released
RLFANS News
1
NEWS ITEMS
VIEWS


Visit the RLFANS.COM SHOP
for more merchandise!