cab man wrote:All i am saying is Ben from now on whatever happens to him i.e stays at Rovers goes to play for another club, works on a building site. What he should not do is get drunk and end up in a town centre somewhere. Because ner do wells will be lining up to give him a good kicking. Ben if has anything about him should just go tee total.
Chris28 wrote:Agreed Dave. I'm just concerned that some posters (Reenyrobin) are distorting what I'm saying. It's a FACT that Raynor got less of a sentence than Cockayne, therefore the offence is clearly viewed as less serious by the court IMO.
I have no idea of the background to the cases really, anymore than anyone else on here does, but the fact of the sentences is there for all to see.
Well you may think that and it could be true. However, different Judges are known to hand down different sentences for similar offences and being human I guess that could be influenced by many things, not necessarily the severity of the offence or the facts presented in the case.
Suffice to say, both are serious violent offences and for consistency ought to be viewed similarly, don't you think?
Big Dave T wrote:Yes, thats why he said he agreed with me about them both needing to be sacked and sent down!
Ahh, perhaps then you could provide a link to your long running sack Raynor crusade, and I will gladly sign up to that and the sack Cockayne crusade too.
Joined: Oct 19 2003 Posts: 17898 Location: Packed like sardines, in a tin
Barnacle Bill wrote:Well you may think that and it could be true. However, different Judges are known to hand down different sentences for similar offences and being human I guess that could be influenced by many things, not necessarily the severity of the offence or the facts presented in the case.
Suffice to say, both are serious violent offences and for consistency ought to be viewed similarly, don't you think?
Yes - although as apparently sustained attack the Cockayne one would in my view be considered worse, especially given the return to dish out more kicking
On your first point I am reliably informed that had either case been heard in my home town before a certain judge, both would almost certainly have been sent down for a decent stretch with the word of the judge ringing in their ears, so I agree on that too.
Agreeing with more than one Rovers fan in a day. I'm off for a lie down
Joined: Jun 01 2007 Posts: 12664 Location: Leicestershire.
Big Dave T wrote:I dont even recall the thread to be honest, and the Hull Fans that welcomed him not getting a custodial sentence need to think again for me. As ive said, there is not place in our sport for this kind of behaviour, from any player.
That is an entirely legitimate position. If the RFL adopts it as 'company policy', I wouldn't argue with that.
Chris28 wrote:Hang on!
Look at the sentenced handed out - Raynor gets around 6 months less, suspended for 6 months less. Anyone with half a brain can see that's a lesser sentence. The offences are different but the law and the court has viewed Raynor's as less severe, independently of each other.
If you want me to put links to the reports, fine but its all there to see on BBC et al.
Yes, but even if you think that a harsher sentence demands a harsher additional response from the RFL, you need to be clear in advance where the boundaries lay. If they'd started a sliding scale with Raynor or Feka, it'd be clearer. However, if you start saying what they did deserved no RFL sanction, but BC's actions were beyond the pale and he should lose his livelihood (which you haven't, so this isn't aimed at you), that is going to raise suspicions among Rovers' fans that club loyalties are coming into play.
Joined: Oct 26 2007 Posts: 2570 Location: East Hull is Wonderful
I can't believe that the Raynor thread was locked after one night, with a mod saying he should be left alone and not punished twice, and contributors asking that the thread be locked to stop trolls, all with the exception of Neil who said it should be kept open, then another mod closes said thread straight away citing it had gone off thread,
what BS, I think Ben Should have gone down, but it sickens me to read the self rightious BS off a large proportion of Hull fans.
I can't believe that the Raynor thread was locked after one night, with a mod saying he should be left alone and not punished twice, and contributors asking that the thread be locked to stop trolls, all with the exception of Neil who said it should be kept open, then another mod closes said thread straight away citing it had gone off thread,
Joined: Oct 19 2003 Posts: 17898 Location: Packed like sardines, in a tin
Mild Rover wrote:That is an entirely legitimate position. If the RFL adopts it as 'company policy', I wouldn't argue with that.
Yes, but even if you think that a harsher sentence demands a harsher additional response from the RFL, you need to be clear in advance where the boundaries lay. If they'd started a sliding scale with Raynor or Feka, it'd be clearer. However, if you start saying what they did deserved no RFL sanction, but BC's actions were beyond the pale and he should lose his livelihood (which you haven't, so this isn't aimed at you), that is going to raise suspicions among Rovers' fans that club loyalties are coming into play.
Bloody hell I feel ill!
If this is going to be a regular thing, and I sincerely hope it isn't, then the RFL need to get something in place NOW, legally sound and agreed by all the clubs.
I've been disappointed by the number of RL players getting into trouble and we run the risk of turning our league into the NRL if something isn't done.
From my perspective club loyalties clearly DO come into this, and it's been good to see that at least some posters on here can see both sides and agree that their own player deserves some sort of sanction in addition to the court punishment. The fact that it hasn't happened in some cases is a let down.
Joined: May 24 2007 Posts: 7504 Location: East Stand
phil webbo wrote:I can't believe that the Raynor thread was locked after one night, with a mod saying he should be left alone and not punished twice, and contributors asking that the thread be locked to stop trolls, all with the exception of Neil who said it should be kept open, then another mod closes said thread straight away citing it had gone off thread,
what BS, I think Ben Should have gone down, but it sickens me to read the self rightious BS off a large proportion of Hull fans.
But we've been expecting it all week
phil webbo wrote:I can't believe that the Raynor thread was locked after one night, with a mod saying he should be left alone and not punished twice, and contributors asking that the thread be locked to stop trolls, all with the exception of Neil who said it should be kept open, then another mod closes said thread straight away citing it had gone off thread,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 38 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
that Raynor got less of a sentence than Cockayne, therefore the offence is clearly viewed as less serious by the court IMO.
