You’re kidding right, the foul duck would want a big slice of his severance to listen to his foul mouth!

The wage thief I can let go…but I’m taken back by you calling me “ducking useless”!

Again the ability to understand what statement an inclusive sport being lenient on disability discrimination would have goes straight over some peoples head. Yeah let's just call black players the N word and gays queer, no harm is there

Quote ="worthing wire"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.'" So, I cant speak for the other mods, I'm not gonna ban you as for the most part you've covered what's being discussed. What I would challenge, is the highlighted bit, it's contrary in nature, you understand why he would get upset, but its not a war crime, and the list of things to get offended by grows longer. Have a quick gander at this link, https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/how- ... hate-crime It might give you a bit more information on what appears to have been a crime since 1986.

Quote ="worthing wire"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.'" So, I cant speak for the other mods, I'm not gonna ban you as for the most part you've covered what's being discussed. What I would challenge, is the highlighted bit, it's contrary in nature, you understand why he would get upset, but its not a war crime, and the list of things to get offended by grows longer. Have a quick gander at this link, https://www.disabilityrightsuk.org/how- ... hate-crime It might give you a bit more information on what appears to have been a crime since 1986.

Having read the report the case against Maguire is as water tight as a colander. All seems to be about probability and who's actions seem more genuine rather than any evidence. All charnleys reaction and subsequent reporting could simply be down to him mishearing anything. This is not to say Maguire is innocent just the case against him boll9cks and I'm pretty sure in any court would be thrown out.

Thank you for that insight, Your Honour.

If you do have a law qualification, I apologise.

feel free to point out any evidence.

I read the judgement and the explanation of how they came to the decision. It's not a criminal conviction where the evidence is tested and guilt has to be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Nevertheless, they believed it was pretty much beyond reasonable doubt. He's guilty and the club should own this now. We've been one of the leading lights in PDRL for heavens sake.

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.