Rumour is that Red Hall are subsidising much of their wages, in order to keep them from going to Union or NRL.

If elbow and forearm weren't promoted as said by the disciplinary panel then how do they come to the conclusion of sending off sufficient! Why can't they say the VR (Bentham) got it wrong

Because they never do or never have

Bentham's a referee, in his opinion it was a sending off thus he was duly sent off, the panel aren't there to judge referees' they're just a panel what are there to administer an appropriate course of action to the player, and just because they say it's sending off sufficient does not mean that Bentham got it wrong or that Watts was innocent.

He was - but the on the pitch ref was unduly influenced by the VR ... whispering in his ear that it was reckless.
He should not be, and TBH the VR should NOT be allowed to do it. Especially as you don't have the VR in every game.

I also don't agree with the VR getting involved in these decisions.

There's already no consistency based upon the past few weeks. Watts v Wigan; Burrows's head butt; Gaz's sin bin; McCollom on Ellis at Wembley; Wigan on Gaz's neck at Wembley.

Five incidents all with a VR in attendance, but surprisingly only two players asked to leave the field?

Saying it is SOS would suggest the referee got the decision right and Watts isn't innocent.
However, not actually detailing any offence, and directly saying the reason he was sent off didn't happen (I.e. He said the elbow wasn't promoted, which was the reason he was sent off) suggests the referee did get it wrong and Watts is innocent.

They are contradictory. You just can't have them both. It's one or the other.

At the end of the day the VR should only be used for deciding if its a try or not, they should not be deployed as referee in the ear which is clearly what is happening.

If suspected foul play has been committed then use the 'on report' system but Hicks was told to give a red card by the VR (Bentham) and that for me is wrong (regardless of him being right or wrong with his decision) and will destroy the game if this is what is going to happen.

For me I still think the VR is not something we should use in the game unless/until it can be used in all SL games as televised games are clearly not officiated the same as non televised.

... the simplest solution is not to have a VR in any games - let the ref get it right (or wrong) and forget about analysing the game in such minute detail.
The VR (should) only comment on marginal decisions, but their verdicts are often contentious anyway.
And stop replaying fouls on the big screen, all it does is inflame the situation even more.

In other words, treat sky televised games like every other game, not the other way round.

In the NRL every game is televised, over here it's not making it unfair, I could not agree with you more, neither should the VR be involved in anything other than a try or no try decision, whether they were right or wrong depends on what side of the hill you live, what I tried to explain without much success and without bias was that right or wrong Bentham acted on his judgement aided by the VR.