WiganWarriorsFans.com

East Stand Faithful wrote:CPW is correct but also I was under the impression the following AUP taken from RLfans would apply to this forum also?

By registering an account you agree to follow this policy (the AUP), which applies to all sites on the RLFANS network, and includes private messages and emails sent via the site as well as postings made in public areas.


"1. Prohibited content

1.3. Matter that are sub judice cannot be discussed.
* Under British law, when a matter becomes sub judice - from the moment a charge is filed or hearing arranged and until a resolution is reached - publishers are restricted under criminal penalty to what can be published so that they don’t prejudice a case.
* The definition of published content includes web sites and postings on message boards."

You cannot discuss the details of the case as the law bans the media from publishing or broadcasting, including on the internet, any comments or information that might seriously prejudice active legal proceedings, in particular criminal proceedings heard before juries, as to do so would be contempt of court.

An example would be the publication or broadcast, once proceedings are active, of the fact that a person charged with a criminal offence has a previous criminal record, as this is likely to prejudice anyone who may serve on a jury.

To highlight what can and cannot be discussed, you can look at recent cases that have been reported in the media such as the Stuart Hall case. It was reported that he had been arrested and charged with sexual abuse and it was reported that he appeared at magistrates where he was committed to trial and the date of said trial was also published.

What wasn't allowed to be said sub judice was, who the victims were and what exactly he did to them. If you read fully the text of your own post, ie 'publishers are restricted ... to what can be published', it means exactly that; you can publish some things, but not others.

In any event cp has pointed out the reasons behind people's reluctance to say anything, I fully respect that reason and I am happy in my ignorance

This thread has really gone off on a tangent now

josie andrews wrote:This thread has really gone off on a tangent now

And we're still now wiser about Gaz's plans!

josie andrews wrote:This thread has really gone off on a tangent now

Too true!

Contract signed with PARRA, Salford desparate to sign him. CURRENTLY STILL GOING TO PARRA.

cpwigan wrote:Contract signed with PARRA, Salford desparate to sign him. CURRENTLY STILL GOING TO PARRA.

That was always the situation. The rumour began after he'd signed the contract. Don't think he even knows what he's doing!

Kittwazzer wrote:

cpwigan wrote:Contract signed with PARRA, Salford desparate to sign him. CURRENTLY STILL GOING TO PARRA.

That was always the situation. The rumour began after he'd signed the contract. Don't think he even knows what he's doing!

I think when deals are done and announced as done it's poor form to do as the rumours suggest.

Wigan, Hock and Parra all knew where they stood and that was that, then (supposedly) along comes Koukash with a spoiler of a bid. Parra should just say "no" in the same way we knocked back his bid for Sam.

I like the idea Koukash is stirring up the game financially but both he and Parra should not be treating the player like a sack of spuds to be be bartered IMO when his future was all sorted.

Of course it may well be Hock is running round like a headless chicken with no idea what he really wants which would put a different slant on it but if there is anything in this I can't really see how it wasn't instigated by Koukash.

josie andrews wrote:This thread has really gone off on a tangent now

And also become a bit tedious!

Despite what the media say it was Noble who contacted Hock not the Dr. It is not the first time Noble has used Hock. He did so pre Crusaders, telling NRL clubs if they employed him as coach he would bring X, Y, Z players with him (one being Hock).

cpwigan wrote:Despite what the media say it was Noble who contacted Hock not the Dr. It is not the first time Noble has used Hock. He did so pre Crusaders, telling NRL clubs if they employed him as coach he would bring X, Y, Z players with him (one being Hock).

Maybe so but Koukash is the one who will have to do the deal and it will be interesting to see how far he will go to get Hock if Noble has said he wants him at Salford.