WiganWarriorsFans.com

To be fair if there's the family giving one version of events with vengeance in mind, Ganson giving another and other witnesses saying something different again the chances of getting a conviction would be small anyway. I know people have their own opinions on Ganson but that doesn't mean he's guilty of assault, lets be fair it wouldn't be the first time someone involved in Rugby League has been wrongly accused of something. The daughter of the woman who was injured clearly knew who he was, there had been arguing inside, Ganson was kicked out and from most of the reports it seems that his accusers came out after he had been kicked out. IF he did anything it could well have been after intense provocation but the woman who seemed more concerned with ruining his career than the health of her own mother is hardly likely to say that is she. As far as I'm concerned the case has been dropped and as funny as it'll be watching him get some stick, if he hasn't actually done what the woman has accused him of he's probably gone through an horrendous time the past few months for a drunk and disorderly that there are probably several people on here who have either been fined for or been very lucky not to have been.

Gaz. If he is completely innocent of 'striking an 87 year old woman' with his fist, then he has a cast iron libel case against the newspaper which printed the daughter's allegation.

Somehow, I don't think he will be pursuing this, do you!

Kittwazzer wrote:Gaz. If he is completely innocent of 'striking an 87 year old woman' with his fist, then he has a cast iron libel case against the newspaper which printed the daughter's allegation.

Somehow, I don't think he will be pursuing this, do you!

it wouldn't be cast iron at all, you're not taking into account the fact that if you instigate a civil case for defamation of character (slander/libel) against an individual or a newspaper, you pretty much have to prove that any statement made against you is false. The individual or newspaper doesn't have to prove anything they say or print due to laws on freedom of speech/freedom of expression.

Also, as I understand it, successfully proving an allegation as false (very difficult in a your word against mine situation anyway!) is only half the battle. You also have to demonstrate that allegations were made or printed maliciously, which in the case of a newspaper quoting someone's words would be nigh on impossible, unless there was clear evidence that the newspaper knew at the time of printing that the allegations made were false, or if they print an allegation as fact. Clearly if a newspaper printed 'Ganson is an old-woman beater' rather than 'Ganson accused of attacking pensioner', he'd have a stronger case but newspaper editors are careful how things are worded. There is no way an article saying what Ganson has been charged with and quoting the woman's words would ever be deemed libelous unless the woman was to deny saying it (indicating malice by the paper by deliberately and knowingly printing a lie). Clearly this is not going to happen! Its quite funny how you imply that if he were to lose a libel case it would somehow indicate that he is guilty, but won't accept that the CPS deciding against a prosecution might actually mean he hasn't done it. The bloke can't win

I always like doing long winded responses to your posts Stu, I know how much you like reading them

Gaz. That is not the case!

If someone slanders or libels you and you file a lawsuit, the onus is on the defendant to prove that their claims are true!

Kittwazzer wrote:Gaz. That is not the case!

If someone slanders or libels you and you file a lawsuit, the onus is on the defendant to prove that their claims are true!

yeah you're right got the burden of proof the wrong way round (that's actually a minor point in the argument) but which newspaper is making a false allegation maliciously and knowingly? My point still stands that saying what he's been charged with and quoting the statement of a witness is never libelous open and shut case in a million years.

Kittwazzer wrote:Gaz. That is not the case!

If someone slanders or libels you and you file a lawsuit, the onus is on the defendant to prove that their claims are true!

yeah you're right got the burden of proof the wrong way round (that's actually a minor point in the argument) but which newspaper is making a false allegation maliciously and knowingly? My point still stands that saying what he's been charged with and quoting the statement of a witness is never libelous open and shut case in a million years.

It was the Daily Mirror which reported the story.

The victims daughter claimed he 'struck her mother with his fist'!

It is the daughter who makes the statement but, as the paper had printed her quote, they would be equally guilty of libel.

And its the papers which always get sued. They can afford to pay!

I'm just glad the biased St's fan is back, because he is still the best ref we have unfortunately. Can't we get Russell Smith back?

Regarding chants - there will be some the first few games when he ref's... obviously he and everyone will expect that, how can one not? But it will be fine and back to normal after a few rounds all he needs to do is give away popular penalties. The Millenium fiasco seems worse on the rugby pitch it isn't talked about now.

imo

Poor referee. His obnoxious personality shines through on/off the pitch. The fans? I doubt you will hear much. Not sure why but a decade + ago fans really gaave referees heaps with the referee is a banker and your not fit to referee being common chants.