Depends which court he was to take it to?

If he feels he is being unfairly persecuted and its almost a restraint of trade, especially if Wire were to fire him, then he could easily take it to a higher court, where the evidence levels would be a lot stricter than simply one bloke's word and a few mates backing him up against a bloke they have already got a grudge against.

Well let’s be honest if you HADN’T said anything very offensive then you would indeed not accept this and keep fighting until you could clear your name - which wouldn’t be difficult if you were indeed innocent.

you wouldn’t expect a 12 game ban to be handed down without some damning evidence….but this is the RFL so anything is possible.

If the incident is on camera and you can see JM’s lips moving why not get a professional lip reader to confirm what was said.

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance ... case=17385 Minutes are out. It seemingly looks like it is Charnley’s word against McGuire.

https://www.rugby-league.com/governance ... case=17385 Minutes are out. It seemingly looks like it is Charnley’s word against McGuire.

The suggestion that Charnley would make up such a disgusting comment about his own child is pretty disgusting in itself. 'I'll use a made up slur about my own child to get a player banned', some of you are clearly just a sick. And as for the comparisons of bans for physical rather than verbal offences, do people seriously not get the context of the message against disability discrimination and the implacations on wider society if we dont take it seriously. Would you say the same for racist abuse?

Its not easy reading that, a few thoughts, yes it is charnley vs mcguires word..
As mentioned above, it seems distasteful that charnley would use something like that, but we do know he's also a gobe that tried to get people in trouble. And based on what happened last time, mcguire made himself something of an easy target, some sticks.

However, we come again to a repeat of what happened last time, where mcguire said he didn't do it, couldn't possibly have done it and tried to sell them on his character rather than actual details of thr altercation.

What's quite telling this time, the lack of club input some might argue bare minimum, as we went in all guns blazing last time to try and prove his innocence.

This discussion seems to be getting out of hand.

Does it?

So I've read the report and I can see why the panel have sided with charnley.

A decent lawyer would have briefed the defendant better in how to defend such an allegation. Where as it appears McGuire had been left to his own defence and essentially did not make a credible defence.

However, I've no knowledge of what he said on either occasion but 12 games is a hell of a ban.

I've no dog in the fight as a Saints fan but 12 games for an offensive comment seems excessive. Especially when you take into account the background of most players probably being from a culture and era where insults would have been common place.

Its easy in the heat of battle to lose civility and slip into old habits and use a less civil tongue or indeed come to blows. I agree a ban is needed but 12 matches seems punitive, what would the outcome be in another workplace?

Maybe next time just punch the guy rather than use your mouth.

What defence is McGuire supposed to put up other than denying he said it?

Balance of probabilities I think it’s likely he did, but likely is a very dangerous precedent.

I’m not McGuire’s biggest fan by any means and I’d be more than happy if we shipped him back to Oz on the back of this however it does seem harsh that a player reports McGuire has said something abusive however there’s no witnesses and zero evidence other than McGuire’s lips moving and McGuire still cops such a ban. Don’t get me wrong if he has said what has been reported then throw the book at him. I’d want him sacked today but without evidence and one persons claim I would have thought it would have been quite severe to give out such a hefty ban, if any.

No is isn’t. It’s the credibility of JC and the proven untruthful nature from JMcG in the first disciplinary, in addition, to the ‘one word against another’.

If JMcG had told the whole truth in the first discipline, he may have had a chance with ‘his word against mine’ in the second hearing, but he hadn’t.

So you must take the credibility of Charnley as reason above doubt against McGuire.

Absolutely just punch them.
Police will not get involved.

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.

By your own admission you don’t know…so why in heavenly name say that?

His son doesn’t have cerebral palsy!

Silly lover should've covered his mouth, like these [iclever[/i 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

Pretty much my thoughts.

What I would say is that if McGuire is totally convinced of his innocence (a big if), then he should have found himself a good lawyer by now and made sure he's going to appeal, because any half decent lawyer would tear that case apart in a court of law.

I mean, disgruntled ex-employee goes after valuable asset of his former employer, with accusation that nobody else has heard - I don't think the CPS would be sending that to court.

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

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

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

Quote ="worthing wire"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.

Quote ="worthing wire"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.

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.

Thank you for that insight, Your Honour.

If you do have a law qualification, I apologise.

feel free to point out any evidence.

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.