Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:43 pm  

rubber duckie wrote:

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

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

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 9:56 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.

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.

Re: McGuire : Wed Jun 07, 2023 10:03 pm  

secondstanza wrote:

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.

Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 10:38 am  

Rugby league has gone woke

12 games for hurty words.

Get a grip.

Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:00 am  

secondstanza wrote:

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.

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.

Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 11:40 am  

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.

Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 12:04 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.

You're being willfully ignorant of the situational use of the word (not that using it any context is good). For what possible reason would McGuire have to say the word to Charnley during a rugby game other than to be mean spirited and get a reaction. Which if he wants to wind Charnley up then go for it. But don't use someones child to do so. Under any circumstances.

Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:05 pm  

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).

Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 1:40 pm  

Dita's Slot Meter wrote:

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).

Interesting thought, and in a court of law, the evidence would be viewed very differently.

Re: McGuire : Thu Jun 08, 2023 2:00 pm  

He wont take it to court

He's been found guilty

He's not really been great since he joined

Bin him if we can, let him train with the reserves if we can't.

Peanut to 2nd Row, King recalled and back at 3.............