Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 9:59 pm  

Fat Boy wrote:

[b][size=130]People saying that he has been silly, daft, stupid, homophobic (on this occasion) have absolutely no grounds to do so.

Excepting Homophobic, his Twitter rant has given me, and seemingly many others, grounds to say he has been silly, daft and stupid.

The RFL saying they are investigating is fair comment as the nature of any slur (should there be one) is serious in today's social climate. Also, the RFL's guidelines/rules have been posted on here regarding anyone having to suffer abuse and as all are signed up to it, including us fans, the RFL have to police it to ensure this terrific family sport we have doesn't become like football. We have to provide good role models, attract sponsors, as well as endeavour to show the outside world that we know its the twenty first century.

My standpoint is that despite his previous, he is innocent. Should there be something (lip reading, ref's equipment, witness statements) to clearly show he called someone a puff (especially as there didn't seem to be much to warrant this outburst), he should get a larger ban and fine than last time as he's had a chance to learn. Flanagan should also be looked at as part of the investigation.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Fri Sep 05, 2014 5:35 am  

Leeds rushed to the press? They waited days, took advice then released a statement. God he talks garbage

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Fri Sep 05, 2014 7:49 am  

Its simple really - If the person who was allegedly on the receiving end of any comment does not take offence and/or does not wish to press charges then the matter should be dropped

People use all types of language in 'heated' situations and most normal people will understand the difference between a heat of the moment comment or an offensive 'phobic' based comment

The action of employing a lip reader when there has not been an official complaint is, in my book, an over reaction and definitly a bullying tactic employed by the RFL.

Perhaps we should make a complaint regarding the clear discrimination that the RFL are practicing on Zak??

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Fri Sep 05, 2014 7:55 am  

tad rhino wrote:

Leeds rushed to the press? They waited days, took advice then released a statement. God he talks garbage

The RFL confirmed that they were investigating the incident on the 2nd September. Leeds released their statement on the 3rd September.

The game took place on the 29th August. Leeds knew that night that Hardaker was being accused but they remained silent on the issue, even though they knew about the storm surrounding it, until accusing the RFL of a witch hunt.

The RFL merely confirmed they were investigating the incident on the 2nd. Seeing as the RFL have almost certainly received complaints and will have seen the forum talk on the issue they were duty bound to investigate it. If Hardaker didn't say "effing puff" that night then a proper investigation could quickly look at the facts and evidence and conclude that there is no case to answer. But Leeds have pretty much gone to war with the RFL and are questioning why an investigation is even taking place.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:10 am  

pep1505 wrote:

Its simple really - If the person who was allegedly on the receiving end of any comment does not take offence and/or does not wish to press charges then the matter should be dropped.

That's BS.

For one thing someone might say in the press that they don't want an issue taken any further while behind the scenes they could be threatening serious consequences if action isn't taken. That is what seems to have happened over the Ferdinand/John Terry case.

People use all types of language in 'heated' situations and most normal people will understand the difference between a heat of the moment comment or an offensive 'phobic' based comment

I think most oppo fans will be saying that the incident should be investigated. Most Leeds fans seem to be wanting Zak left alone.

The action of employing a lip reader when there has not been an official complaint is, in my book, an over reaction and definitly a bullying tactic employed by the RFL.

You only have the statement from Leeds to know they are employing a lip reader. You do not know what complaints the RFL have received. The most blatant example of bullying tactics is the statement from Leeds.

Perhaps we should make a complaint regarding the clear discrimination that the RFL are practicing on Zak??

We pretty much have. But it's a lame argument when we've all seen the video and know that there was an incident. If he was innocent then we wouldn't fear an investigation because he'd be cleared. We don't seem to want an investigation taking place.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:23 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

The RFL confirmed that they were investigating the incident on the 2nd September. Leeds released their statement on the 3rd September.

The game took place on the 29th August. Leeds knew that night that Hardaker was being accused but they remained silent on the issue, even though they knew about the storm surrounding it, until accusing the RFL of a witch hunt.

The RFL merely confirmed they were investigating the incident on the 2nd. Seeing as the RFL have almost certainly received complaints and will have seen the forum talk on the issue they were duty bound to investigate it. If Hardaker didn't say "effing puff" that night then a proper investigation could quickly look at the facts and evidence and conclude that there is no case to answer. But Leeds have pretty much gone to war with the RFL and are questioning why an investigation is even taking place.

You really need to wake up and get yourself out of the hole you are digging.

To be fair, had it been the first time this had happened, I kind of understand the situation you are wanting, but that is exactly what happened the first time it did happen. What we have now is different, under different circumstances, following different rules, no microphone pick up of what was said, and because it is happening again in such a short time the public perception is very different. Because of it happening again should be exactly why the RFL in changing their own procedures, should have at the very least have kept things private. Why you seem incapable of understanding all that I do not know.

What I find so strange about you view, is that can you image had Keith Senior still been playing in what appears this modern game. There were not many who gave cheap shots, sledging, abuse to refs, etc, as much as him. What would his reputation be like today. The main party innocent in this is the player, yet you seem to want to somehow allude to him been the problem.

Leeds haven't gone to war with the RFL, they have defended the position of the player quite clearly (which is something the RFL should also have taken into account), and questioned what the RFL are doing in going against their own systems to answer to a social media campaign, without any proof to warrant such a change. All organisations are there to be questioned, if it's members feel something is not right. Like I said, look at the first incident against Wire, and how the player, the club, and the RFL handled it, where the proof was there straight away, not only by a microphone pick up but by the player himself saying exactly what he said straight away. It has been done right before. This time it is not right, and the club not only needed to set the position straight for the player, but for the players family (an area you just completely disregard).

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:36 am  

Gotcha wrote:

From that he made a lot of changes to his life. One you will see in a few weeks. Another was to settle down, and from that he asked his on off partner who went to the USA earlier this year to return, and become a couple, and move in together. a .

Like what changes? Getting his tats lasered?
as for his bird, yes shes in NYC, for work, a lot. Meanwhile he spend his time tweeting other girls. The joys of social media eh?

Ben Cockaine "turned his life around" after stomping on someones head, he went on to be an EDL pin up and being a facebook racisit.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:45 am  

jools wrote:

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.

I'm assuming that a pro sports players shouting on tv in front of a worldwide audience to another player the homophobic insult is wrong??????

ITS WRONG

I did not mention Zak in that post

I SAID THE RFL HAD TO INVESTIGATE COS THE SLAGGING OFF IS WRONG IN TODAYS SOCIETY

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:48 am  

ThePrinter wrote:

A couple of pages ago you said Hardaker's reputation will be exactly the same as it was before the Saints game even though he's now been accused a SECOND time of a gay slur.

Yet you now protest that Silverwood's reputation may never recover from Leeds questioning the timeline of events between the match officials and RFL.

Oh dear.

Lets also get told what went on at the World Cup.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Fri Sep 05, 2014 8:50 am  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

and they were probably under pressure from the press not to be seen as condoning "homophobia".

.

penny is starting to drop