Alan Dickens - Tigers lack of attack coach.

[GB72]

BBC Leicester may have other sources and have made the comment without the detail without the clubs knowledge.

A very fair point but there have been a few who have said that they have the basic story and have had for quite a while and have not broadcast and i would be surprised if that did not include the BBC. They would have far more to lose than they would gain by scooping the story. But, as with anything, it is just a hypothesis.

[Rugbygramps]

And herein lies the problem.
TBH this is as bad as I’ve known. The fans have a right to know what’s going on, without disclosing personal situations, and are commenting on a broadcast from the BBC not some tinpot podcast. Others are available.
Maybe the club would be happier if questions were asked by fans on social media?

[CrumblingTerrace]

There's also a far more high-profile sporting case happening right now with Christian Horner and Red Bull that has been handled very differently.

Red Bull made a public announcement that a hearing was taking place, they referred to, "Recent allegations," and they provided a date for when a decision would be made by the internal investigation team.

In contrast...

[Jimmy Skitz]

There's also a far more high-profile sporting case happening right now with Christian Horner and Red Bull that has been handled very differently.

Red Bull made a public announcement that a hearing was taking place, they referred to, "Recent allegations," and they provided a date for when a decision would be made by the internal investigation team.

In contrast...

he's also continued in his job.

[sk 88]

The RFU usually publishes disciplinary hearing results (good and bad) on all levels of seriousness. Similar situations are often published redacted of key names. A player last year found not guilty of racism still had the hearing documents published but with identifying details redacted.

It is quite fishy that hearings relating to some one employed by the RFU at the time of the allegations have not been published.

While I can understand the arguments that he was found not guilty and he would be so easily identifiable redacting would be pointless I would personally think the principal of open justice trumps that right to privacy quite significantly.

[Rugbygramps]

There's also a far more high-profile sporting case happening right now with Christian Horner and Red Bull that has been handled very differently.

Red Bull made a public announcement that a hearing was taking place, they referred to, "Recent allegations," and they provided a date for when a decision would be made by the internal investigation team.

In contrast...

he's also continued in his job.

I read that some parties are advising Horner to resign

[Old Hob]

And herein lies the problem.
TBH this is as bad as I’ve known. The fans have a right to know what’s going on, without disclosing personal situations, and are commenting on a broadcast from the BBC not some tinpot podcast. Others are available.
Maybe the club would be happier if questions were asked by fans on social media?

On what basis is this "right to know" founded? It seems a stretch, to me at least, that the purchase of a company's product entitles one to be privy to matters that are deemed confidential. If there are ethical issues that require a whistleblower then that is a different case but, in this instance, it seems there is purely a matter between employee and employer.
As to the effect this is having on the on-pitch performance no-one outside those in the know can say with any certainty what that situation is.

[Rugbygramps]

And herein lies the problem.
TBH this is as bad as I’ve known. The fans have a right to know what’s going on, without disclosing personal situations, and are commenting on a broadcast from the BBC not some tinpot podcast. Others are available.
Maybe the club would be happier if questions were asked by fans on social media?

On what basis is this "right to know" founded? It seems a stretch, to me at least, that the purchase of a company's product entitles one to be privy to matters that are deemed confidential. If there are ethical issues that require a whistleblower then that is a different case but, in this instance, it seems there is purely a matter between employee and employer.
As to the effect this is having on the on-pitch performance no-one outside those in the know can say with any certainty what that situation is.

I stand by my opinion though I’ll try not to repeat myself. Maybe I should have added the word more. It’s all very well saying all that you do, but this drip feed of info removal of posts, and then complete radio silence means guess will be made. I’m certain more can be said than has been without breaking any confidences, especially given what was said on radio Leicester
Your comment re performance, is correct though the absence of a full time coach with others having to share the extra work load is going to have an impact

[AngusMcCoatup]

There's also a far more high-profile sporting case happening right now with Christian Horner and Red Bull that has been handled very differently.

Red Bull made a public announcement that a hearing was taking place, they referred to, "Recent allegations," and they provided a date for when a decision would be made by the internal investigation team.

In contrast...

he's also continued in his job.

I read that some parties are advising Horner to resign

Some even recon that he is on Spice!! and that has affected his mental stability.

[Rugbygramps]

he's also continued in his job.

I read that some parties are advising Horner to resign

Some even recon that he is on Spice!! and that has affected his mental stability.

Isn’t Ginger a Spice ?

[fentiger]

I read that some parties are advising Horner to resign

Some even recon that he is on Spice!! and that has affected his mental stability.

Isn’t Ginger a Spice ?

Keep up at the back....

[TigerXV]

And herein lies the problem.
TBH this is as bad as I’ve known. The fans have a right to know what’s going on, without disclosing personal situations, and are commenting on a broadcast from the BBC not some tinpot podcast. Others are available.
Maybe the club would be happier if questions were asked by fans on social media?

On what basis is this "right to know" founded? It seems a stretch, to me at least, that the purchase of a company's product entitles one to be privy to matters that are deemed confidential. If there are ethical issues that require a whistleblower then that is a different case but, in this instance, it seems there is purely a matter between employee and employer.
As to the effect this is having on the on-pitch performance no-one outside those in the know can say with any certainty what that situation is.

I stand by my opinion though I’ll try not to repeat myself. Maybe I should have added the word more. It’s all very well saying all that you do, but this drip feed of info removal of posts, and then complete radio silence means guess will be made. I’m certain more can be said than has been without breaking any confidences, especially given what was said on radio Leicester
Your comment re performance, is correct though the absence of a full time coach with others having to share the extra work load is going to have an impact

The club is in a difficult position in that Dickens was in the employment of the RFU when whatever was alleged to happen occurred so it is not up to Tigers to talk about it even if they know all the details - they probably do not and only have an outline. Unlike other disciplinaries the RFU will probably not be able to talk about it as it may lead to other parties details potentially being uncovered so they owe a duty of care to ensure privacy for (all) those concerned. Whatever is happening with the employment of Dickens at the club may also be subject to legal process so equally the club will not be able to release any information about it. So, no, we currently don't have any right to know what has or may happen.

[AViewFromLe2]

We've had this story on our podcast for a while now - since November - i am glad it is now public knowledge so this may now get resolved either way. For multiple reasons we were never in a position to say anything.

The allegations regarding Dickens probably won't become public for legal reasons however they are not important as they are no longer the story, as he has now been proven innocent. What is the story is, is why has he not come back to work, given several weeks have passed since he was cleared. From what i have been told and what the reaction has been since Radio Leicester went with the story, something does not add up.

[mol2]

The RFU usually publishes disciplinary hearing results (good and bad) on all levels of seriousness. Similar situations are often published redacted of key names. A player last year found not guilty of racism still had the hearing documents published but with identifying details redacted.

It is quite fishy that hearings relating to some one employed by the RFU at the time of the allegations have not been published.

While I can understand the arguments that he was found not guilty and he would be so easily identifiable redacting would be pointless I would personally think the principal of open justice trumps that right to privacy quite significantly.

It probably does in the Law Courts, but what seems to be workplace related rather than alleged illegality is a private matter for the those concerned and their internal disciplinary procedures. No doubt, the alleged affected party may well have the option to take things to the Courts or repeat the allegations publicly to provoke a response.

So he’s been subjected to the equivalent of being summoned to head office and subject to suspension (in the public domain) whilst being investigated. The allegations seem not to have been upheld so how would the public good be served by making details of that investigation public and potentially exposing him or other parties to embarrassment or harm from private disclosure.

Those of us who have had the proverbial brown stuff thrown at us by unfounded allegations or complaints are only too aware that the smell lingers for a long time even if exonerated. We are all entitled to privacy and especially from harm from unsubstantiated claims.

[Tigerbeat]

Allegations made against any individual, which later are proved to be unfounded or cleared, do take there toll on the person both mentally and physically.........you can say things that cause harm but you cannot take the words back......the pain still remains and stressful.