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.
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.
The best way to predict the future is to create it...
Joined: Jul 17 2015 Posts: 4682 Location: Sitting on the naughty step
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.
Just my opinions unless it's a FACT, in which case it's a fact.
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.
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.
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).
And so you aim towards the sky, And you'll rise high today, Fly away, Far away, Far from pain....
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.
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
