Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:15 pm  

You’re kidding right, the foul duck would want a big slice of his severance to listen to his foul mouth!

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:20 pm  

lefty goldblatt wrote:

Silly lover should've covered his mouth, like these clever footballers do, then said "prove I said something naughty". If there's no corroborating evidence via microphone, then he should be entitled to launch an appeal.

Simple truth is, he's been ####ing useless when he's put his Wire kit on, and rubber duckie should drive him to the airport, free of charge, because he's a wage thief

McGuire
Not duckie

The wage thief I can let go…but I’m taken back by you calling me “ducking useless”!

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:32 pm  

Again the ability to understand what statement an inclusive sport being lenient on disability discrimination would have goes straight over some peoples head. Yeah let's just call black players the N word and gays queer, no harm is there

[Fantastic Mr Catpiss]

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 8:58 pm  

worthing wire wrote: 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): It seems that McGuire has twice now used the word spastic, or some diminutive of this. Which is, these days, an offensive term. If Josh Charnley's son has cerebral palsy, then McGuire has used an old-fashioned, now very pejorative, term to state a fact. It's not very nice by any stretch, and he deserves calling out on it. If Josh Charnley's son doesn't have cerebral palsy, and is autistic as has been suggested, then McGuire has used an old-fashioned, pejorative term inaccurately. Again, it's not nice, and he deserves calling out on it. 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.

worthing wire wrote: 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): It seems that McGuire has twice now used the word spastic, or some diminutive of this. Which is, these days, an offensive term. If Josh Charnley's son has cerebral palsy, then McGuire has used an old-fashioned, now very pejorative, term to state a fact. It's not very nice by any stretch, and he deserves calling out on it. If Josh Charnley's son doesn't have cerebral palsy, and is autistic as has been suggested, then McGuire has used an old-fashioned, pejorative term inaccurately. Again, it's not nice, and he deserves calling out on it. 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.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:02 pm  

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.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:13 pm  

Thank you for that insight, Your Honour.

If you do have a law qualification, I apologise.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:21 pm  

Douglas Black wrote:

Thank you for that insight, Your Honour.

If you do have a law qualification, I apologise.

feel free to point out any evidence.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:26 pm  

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.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:35 pm  

Douglas Black wrote:

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.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:41 pm  

gary numan wrote:

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.