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.

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

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.

Rugby league has gone woke

12 games for hurty words.

Get a grip.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.............

The only way we can fire him is through a mutual termination. Do it without and he has every right to sue, if he (or, more importantly, a lawyer) truly believes he can win a case in a higher court.

Probably would have a double whammy of suing the RFL for restraint of trade and Wire for unfair dismissal.

This forum has a surprising amount of lawyers on it
Not only lawyers, but lawyers with detailed knowledge of individual players contracts.

Would a "he said but there were no actual witnesses" be a reason for dismissal if an employment tribunal was involved?

If he said it, he should have some decency and walk. If he maintains that he hasn’t said anything offensive, then the appeal should be underway and announced at the first opportunity, even for the clubs sake to look like they are not just being inactive on this.

I would have thought the club would have put him on gardening leave pending the outcome of any appeal and/or the internal investigation.

All of this could’ve been avoided if McGuire had simply had a pop at Charnley’s miniscule winkle like any normal human being.

I know enough about, and had enough dealings with, employment law that I know you can't just fire someone on the basis of a lone, witness-less complaint from an ex-employee, who has a gripe against both your business and the individual he's complaining about.

And you know without any doubt that there's nothing in McGuire's contract that states any lengthy ban or multiple lengthy bans dished out by the governing body could result in dismissal. Or if found guilty of using foul and offensive language by said governing body it would be considered gross misconduct. Fascinating.

I hope more Aussies don't twig, sign for 3 years and call someone a "slot meter" every time they play so they get 3 years of nest egg whilst having a picnic in Walton Gardens

Any RL player signing a contract with those terms and conditions probably needs to find himself a new agent.

Sorry DSM , I don’t want to come across all know-it-all but it is not ‘witness less”. Charnley is a witness. It may be uncorroborated,but that isn’t fatal to a dismissal or even a conviction come to that.
As to grounds for dismissal a clause allowing for dismissal where the employer is brought into disrepute by the actions of its employee is fairly standard and i would be amazed if nothing along those lines were included in Maguire’s contract.

It's an indictment of today's society that there are people protesting the ban.
There's enough evidence from the first instance to dismiss him. If his contract doesn't incorporate a "gross misconduct" clause I would be amazed. He has clearly breached that requirement.
As for restraint of trade, do me a favour. He's breached his contract. End of discussion.
Hugely disappointed with the club at it's inaction. Dismissal.

A society that supports fairness and some evidence?

Still peddling the notion charnley made up a discriminatory comment about his own son. Wow.

After listening to DP media comments on Wire TV, I read into it, undertones that the career of McGuire relies on what decision McGuire decides to take.

My hunch is,…
Don’t appeal, get dismissed,
Appeal, with credible evidence (which DP’s body language gave the impression he doesn’t think that will be forthcoming), and get a quash or big reduction in the suspension, and keep your job.
As long as there is that chance of appeal, the club will give him the time.
If by Thursday he hasn’t appealed…he’ll get dismissed.

Reading between the lines, that’s how I see it.