Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:05 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

All the fans and the media knew his name already. There was already a storm brewing before he was named.

Of course there was. But there was a reason that the press didn't report anything until after the RFL statement. The frothings were on the same forums, often from the same posters, who a few weeks ago were insisting that Hardaker be prosecuted for aggravated assault after a "clear gouge" on Chris Hill, thanks to Vines, slanted photographs and other instruments. They're not exactly the most reliable bunch of "witnesses". And what they were saying was slanderous, and if the press straight reported to that they'd be open to charges too.

It needed the RFL statement for any story to printed without risk to the press and the consequent oh-so-positive headlines and the snowballing of abuse towards Hardaker and the exposure of the story, which still seems a baseless accusation, to those that know little or nothing of Rugby League. This is the "duty of care" that GH talks about in his statement and that the RFL have failed in.

If you're looking for who's made mistakes in this saga, the RFL are top of the list and Hetherington's pretty much nowhere.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:07 pm  

jools wrote:

Is it any worse than what is, and has been, posted about other players, clubs and referees? Including by Leeds fans up in arms about those who are posting stuff about Zak and Leeds!
This has come about because a silly arrogant boy hasn't the ability to think about his actions. The press was all over the incident because, like it or not, we DO live in an age of keyboard warriors. This meant the RFL had to be seen to address it. They were left with little choice - either upset Leeds or upset everyone else. Zak, instead of sensibly keeping his head down couldn't resist the opportunity to log onto twitter and couldn't control his anger (seems to be a pattern here). The hullabaloo that followed meant the club had to step forward and make a statement.
the blame is squarely at societies door whichever way you look at it.

Because of how it's been allowed to pan out It won't stand up in any court

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:25 pm  

craigizzard wrote:

Of course there was. But there was a reason that the press didn't report anything until after the RFL statement. The frothings were on the same forums, often from the same posters, who a few weeks ago were insisting that Hardaker be prosecuted for aggravated assault after a "clear gouge" on Chris Hill, thanks to Vines, slanted photographs and other instruments. They're not exactly the most reliable bunch of "witnesses". And what they were saying was slanderous, and if the press straight reported to that they'd be open to charges too.

It needed the RFL statement for any story to printed without risk to the press and the consequent oh-so-positive headlines and the snowballing of abuse towards Hardaker and the exposure of the story, which still seems a baseless accusation, to those that know little or nothing of Rugby League. This is the "duty of care" that GH talks about in his statement and that the RFL have failed in.

If you're looking for who's made mistakes in this saga, the RFL are top of the list and Hetherington's pretty much nowhere.

Hetherington's pretty much thrown Silverwood into the flames just as much as Zak was.

Silverwood might have made massive mistakes but he could also be utterly blameless in this.

Just as an example of how you can remember things after the event because you were distracted.

Me and my friend were talking in the break room one day and another colleague came in and made a comment that the drink he was holding was "compliments of the company". So he was basically admitting theft to us. But that comment was forgotten because we were then fully engaged with discussing pretty awesome and funny gossip about some other colleagues.

The next day I think we were sat in the car on the way to work when one of us said "Do you remember what **** said when he came in the room yesterday" and we both instantly recalled what the daft prick had said. We were both mad at him for bragging about theft to us, because by doing that we were complicit in it. So I had to warn the fool that if he wanted to steal that it was his own stupid decision but he shouldn't be telling us because we don't want to know.

So I can accept that maybe Silverwood did hear it and didn't recall it until later. Not ideal in the circumstances, but he should be able to explain how it occured if asked properly.

But Leeds seem to be calling him out before he even has a chance to explain.

Leeds are wrong for that and they should have treated Silverwood with the respect they wish Zak to be treated with.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:34 pm  

frepneyboy wrote:

No, the RFL had to be seen to address it cos its wrong FFS!!!!!!!!!

That's a massive assumption you are making there!
The RFL has to be seen to address it IF he has done anything wrong. The fact that there was such a fuss made in the press, tv and social media about an allegation meant they had to be seen to investigate it. The complaints about him being named are laughable given if he hadn't been it would have little difference to Zak since everybody would know who they were investigating and could have made things worse for him and the RFL as they would be accused of covering for Leeds.
The fact is we don't know the TRUE facts about who has reported what or what evidence there may or not be. Making assumptions about guilt or lack of it is pointless.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:34 pm  

RIGHT LET'S JUST PUT THIS INTO PERSPECTIVE... AND YES I'M SHOUTING.

Zak hasn't done anything wrong... remember innocent until proven guilty.

Zak hasn't been proven guilty ergo he is innocent.

People saying that he has been silly, daft, stupid, homophobic (on this occasion) have absolutely no grounds to do so.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:37 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Hetherington's pretty much thrown Silverwood into the flames just as much as Zak was.

Silverwood might have made massive mistakes but he could also be utterly blameless in this.

Just as an example of how you can remember things after the event because you were distracted.

Me and my friend were talking in the break room one day and another colleague came in and made a comment that the drink he was holding was "compliments of the company". So he was basically admitting theft to us. But that comment was forgotten because we were then fully engaged with discussing pretty awesome and funny gossip about some other colleagues.

The next day I think we were sat in the car on the way to work when one of us said "Do you remember what **** said when he came in the room yesterday" and we both instantly recalled what the daft prick had said. We were both mad at him for bragging about theft to us, because by doing that we were complicit in it. So I had to warn the fool that if he wanted to steal that it was his own stupid decision but he shouldn't be telling us because we don't want to know.

So I can accept that maybe Silverwood did hear it and didn't recall it until later. Not ideal in the circumstances, but he should be able to explain how it occured if asked properly.

But Leeds seem to be calling him out before he even has a chance to explain.

Leeds are wrong for that and they should have treated Silverwood with the respect they wish Zak to be treated with.

Whilst a delightful work based tale it's a completely ridiculous comparison. Are you employed to spot and hear all work colleagues crimes? Doesn't sound like it. Silverwood is paid and expected to spot all misdemeanours whether physical or verbal. That Child didn't act too at the time then the "they both just forgot at the time but remembered several hours after the game" is without doubt the most ridiculous claim I seen put forward about this whole saga and you're not the only one to come up with such stubborn daftness.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:40 pm  

Fat Boy wrote:

RIGHT LET'S JUST PUT THIS INTO PERSPECTIVE... AND YES I'M SHOUTING.

Zak hasn't done anything wrong... remember innocent until proven guilty.

Zak hasn't been proven guilty ergo he is innocent.

People saying that he has been silly, daft, stupid, homophobic have absolutely no grounds to do so.

Blowing a kiss at an opponent less than a month after returning from a ban for a homophobic comment.

That's not silly, daft, stupid?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:45 pm  

i've refereed for 20 years and never, ever recalled a comment that i'd forgotten earlier. in fact players can spout loads of swearwords at you and you remember every single one as you report it later

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:48 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Zak's reputation has been damaged? Really?

I honestly don't know much about Zak. I haven't seen enough of his play to rate him and I don't really care about what happens off field so I don't know what his indiscretions have been. I saw the fall out from his last "homophobic" insult but as I didn't actually see it I never followed it closely.

But my impression of him from the LEEDS FANS ON HERE is that Zak is pretty much a stupid ****. He's rated as an excellent player but an excellent player who's pretty much the polar opposite of "Sir Kev".

So stop talking about his reputation being in tatters because of what the RFL have done because his reputation is pretty much the same as it was before the Saints game.

so if your employer announced to the national media that you were under investigation for homophobic abuse in the workplace and hadn't bothered to actually tell you or summoned you to any kind of disciplinary hearing you wouldnt consider that would do you any kind of professional or personal reputational harm?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:49 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Hetherington's pretty much thrown Silverwood into the flames just as much as Zak was.

Silverwood might have made massive mistakes but he could also be utterly blameless in this.

Just as an example of how you can remember things after the event because you were distracted.

Me and my friend were talking in the break room one day and another colleague came in and made a comment that the drink he was holding was "compliments of the company". So he was basically admitting theft to us. But that comment was forgotten because we were then fully engaged with discussing pretty awesome and funny gossip about some other colleagues.

The next day I think we were sat in the car on the way to work when one of us said "Do you remember what **** said when he came in the room yesterday" and we both instantly recalled what the daft prick had said. We were both mad at him for bragging about theft to us, because by doing that we were complicit in it. So I had to warn the fool that if he wanted to steal that it was his own stupid decision but he shouldn't be telling us because we don't want to know.

So I can accept that maybe Silverwood did hear it and didn't recall it until later. Not ideal in the circumstances, but he should be able to explain how it occured if asked properly.

But Leeds seem to be calling him out before he even has a chance to explain.

Leeds are wrong for that and they should have treated Silverwood with the respect they wish Zak to be treated with.

That seems to be a case of grasping at straws. So after there is a big social media poo storm about homophobic abuse (allegedly) he suddenly remembers yes I did hear some?
Don't think the club have acted badly the RFL took the first shot Leeds are standing by their player