Quote bren2k="bren2k"Wrong again; I said if the allegation proves to be malicious, then there should be some recourse for the victim. For example, I work in a safeguarding environment, where staff are encouraged to raise concerns - if they do, and the concerns prove to be unfounded, looking for evidence that the allegations were malicious or in bad faith is standard practice; if you create a system where concerns can be raised, you also have to protect people from false allegations.
'"
Apologies, you are correct and I am mistaken.
I misinterpreted the following
"Anyhow -
if there is evidence that the MRP didn't spot when they previously looked at the incidents from the game in detail - then he deserves a ban;
if there isn't, Heremaia and Widnes are worthy of scorn"
I took that to mean that if the evidence is inconclusive and Moore is rightly told there is no case to answer then you meant that Widnes and Heremaia should be the focus of scorn. I have since seen that you have more than clarified your position and we are in fact arguing the same thing. Sorry guy.
Sometimes when your club is the focus of so much negativity there is a tendency to get a bit defensive and interpretation of stuff gets a little clouded.
Quote bren2kYou're either dimwitted, or the most one-eyed troll we've ever hosted.'"
Yikes, that escalated quickly. I can't vouch for my intellect but apologies if I have appeared trollish. That wasn't my intention. I have always believed that the debate is healthiest when both sides are represented.
