1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News: Manly fans outraged as Brett Stewart axed in stamp row

Discussion in 'Rugby League Forum' started by fLIP, Apr 15, 2009.

  1. fLIP

    fLIP UFO Hunter

    6,779
    351
    Brisbane
    Ratings:
    +790 / 15
    <p>Australia Post has banned Brett Stewart from its annual souvenir stamp collection, prompting a furious outcry from the Manly club and its fans.</p>

    <a href="http://www.silvertails.net/news/Sea-Eagles/manly-fans-outraged-as-brett-stewart-axed-in-stamp-row.html">Read the full article</a>
     
  2. Rex

    Rex Well-Known Member

    4,334
    761
    Ratings:
    +2,338 / 60
    If you wish to vent, (yes I did) you may go to
    http://www.stamps.com.au/shop/souvenir-sheets/nrl-2009

    click on the "contact us" text in the top right hand corner of the page. May not achieve anything, but man it feels good.
     
  3. mwsneagle

    mwsneagle Active Member

    295
    17
    Ratings:
    +47 / 0
    has cherrington been shown?
     
  4. mwsneagle

    mwsneagle Active Member

    295
    17
    Ratings:
    +47 / 0
    Sorry meant to edit - but yes apparantly Cherrington is on the Roosters... yehh guilty for domestic violence is just soo much better...

    Anyway working on a banner / T-Shirt for Saturday's game:
    " BRETT YOU HAVE OUR STAMP OF APPROVAL"

    Any thoughts?
     
  5. Zep

    Zep Active Member

    1,692
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0
    anyone else get the same generic reply?
     
  6. Cameron

    Cameron Cambo Premium Member

    6,170
    458
    Redcliffe
    Ratings:
    +662 / 35
    i would give that horse **** a 3 word reply

    SUCK MY DICK
     
  7. byso

    byso Well-Known Member

    9,609
    83
    Ratings:
    +83 / 0
    "have fun selling f-all."
     
  8. Rex

    Rex Well-Known Member

    4,334
    761
    Ratings:
    +2,338 / 60
    Yeah, Zep identical response, word for word. Shows exactly how "seriously" they take the feedback.

    This is the email I then sent in response:

    -------------------------------------------------------

    Dear Ms Clark,

    Thank you for your reply.  Unfortunately this appears to be a "form letter" type of response which failed to address the specific issues I raised.  In addition, to suggest Brett Stewart, regarded by most as Manly's most valuable player, is not in the top 20 Manly Players is ludicrous, therefore your explanation that "not all players are able to be represented" is simply disingenuous.

    The key issue I raised in my email is that by excluding Stewart from your collection on the basis of allegations which are pending, you have - in effect - prejudged him as guilty.  Clearly, if innocence was presumed, as is the accepted standard in our Society and our courts of justice, no such action would be taken.  Your actions have very serious implications in our system of justice where members of juries are selected from the community.  Your actions have sent a very strong message to that community of potential jurers that you believe he is guilty.  Whether or not this is your intent, this is the unambiguous outcome.  In taking this action, particularly given your standing as a highly respected and trusted authority in this state and country, you are significantly reducing his chances of receiving a fair trial. Might you also have exposed your organisation to being sued if the charges fail in court?

    The second key issue I raised was the gross inconsistency in your actions compared to your treatment of other players involved in equally serious allegations, many of which were proven.  By communicating that you refuse to endorse Brett Stewart because of the allegations and therefore exclude him from your stamp collection, you have sent the message that you DO endorse ALL other players in the stamp collection.  I am sure, upon careful reflection, you will realise this is a very dangerous message to be sending ... and places you in an untenable position if the media choose to make a story out of this standard you have set. Here are some examples off the top of my head (these details are from memory, so it is possible some errors might exist):

    1.  By connecting your publishing of stamps with your endorsement, you have communicated endorsement of Anthony Cherrington, who was not only accused, but pleaded guilty to assault occasioning actual bodily harm and three counts of maliciously destroying property after threatening his girlfriend.

    2.  By selling stamps of Jake Friend, you are by your standard, communicating endorsement of a player caught by Police driving a motor vehicle at more than three times the legal limit - threatening the lives of all other road users.  A criminal offence I understand.  Friend did not dispute the allegations.

    3.  By selling stamps of Trevor Thurling, you are endorsing a player recently charged with driving with twice the legal limit of alcohol when he crashed his car causing suspected back and neck injuries to two females.

    4.  By selling stamps of Wendell Sailor, you are endorsing a player found guilty of using illicit drugs (cocaine), and who was banned from all Rugby League and Rugby Union Sports for two years. Sailor did not dispute the allegations. Compare this two year suspension with the suspension Stewart has received for the allegations that you refer to (zero weeks).

    5.  By selling stamps of Brett Seymour, you are endorsing a player who reportedly has a 2008 conviction for drink driving, was sacked by the Broncos after he allegedly head-butted a woman on the dance floor at the Regatta Hotel, and recently was suspended for two weeks for more drunken incidents.

    The notable difference of Brett Stewart with these examples is that Stewart denies the allegations and they remain unproven.

    It is notable that the NRL CEO has gone to press distancing his organisation from your actions in excluding Brett Stewart from your NRL stamp collection. Perhaps they can see the minefield that you have entered by speculating on what courts may later decide.
     
  9. nita

    nita Member

    425
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0
    *applauds*
     
  10. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,370
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,463 / 74
    Great reply Rex
     
  11. vidmar

    vidmar Well-Known Member

    1,675
    250
    Ratings:
    +258 / 0
    The decision by Australia Post to omit Brett from the stamps was made even before he was charged....

    and I quote....

    Email to Australia Post “Contact us”

    I'm normally a purchaser of your collectable series but will not be purchasing your NRL 2009 series stamps in protest to the fact that the Manly fullback Brett Stewart has been omitted from the Manly Warringah Sea Eagles set.
    I am not sure if this was an oversight or intentional but to not have the leading try scorer, NSW and Australian rep team member and a player who contributed to Manly's premiership winning team completely devalues the set in my opinion.
    Apparently I am not alone if feeling this way....

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Dear Bob

    Thank you for your email below.  Australia Post made a commercial decision to not feature Brett Stewart on one of the individual stamp tabs in the NRL stamp pack due to the serious nature of the sexual assault charges Stewart is facing.  As a matter before the courts, it was unknown at the time of printing of the outcome of the charges.  Brett Stewart, however still appears in the group shot of the Sea Eagles stamp pack.

    Regards
    Lynne Pearce
    Philatelic Group
    ---------------------------------------------------------

    Dear Lynne,
    Many thanks for your prompt reply and your explanation as to why Brett Stewart did not appear in the squad stamps for the Manly Warringah Sea Eagles.
    As a business owner I understand the nature of commercial decisions but if the furor surrounding your decision is anything to go by then it is a decision that will see many potential customers boycott the product.
    I'm disappointed that the presumption of innocence until proven guilty has been ignored by your organisation?
    Whilst I applaud your stand on protecting the community (despite the matter still being before the court) the decision has of course opened up a "can of worms" as you will now of course need to inform the public that you will be removing the stamp featuring Jake Friend from the Roosters who was recently convicted of DUI (3 times over the limit) and will be sentenced next month? (Or is being found guilty of driving a car whilst intoxicated with the potential to kill innocent by standers covered by a different commercial decision?)

    Regards
    Bob
    ________________________________________________________________
    Dear Bob,

    Thank you for your emails.  In relation to the incident involving Jake Friend, this incident occurred after the printing of the stamp packs and therefore was beyond our control. 

    The NRL stamp sets were printed on the evening of 10 March, seven days after Jake Friend's incident.

    If Brett Stewart is found not guilty Australia Post will consider the inclusion of him in next year's stamp packs.

    Regards,
    Sam
    Samantha Lew
    Marketing Communications Manager
    Philatelic Group, Australia Post

    ---------------------------------------------------------
    Hi Sam,
    I really appreciate you taking the time to answer my questions.
    Your email below makes sense re Jake Friend (although I think you meant the stamps were printed 10 days before he was charged?)
    Which then begs why a decision had been made and agreed upon by the various people involved, the run had been finalised, approved and passed to the printers for printing (no doubt) prior to the 10th March with the omission of Brett Stewart already in place prior to him being charged (He was only charged on the evening of the 10th March?
    http://www.abc.net.au/rn/breakfast/stories/2009/2512897.htm )
    Did you know before Mr. Stewart did that he was going to be charged or was it a "more than likely" decision that you took?
    Alternatively, were there 2 print runs of the Manly Sea Eagles set done just in case? - If so can we the general public choose for ourselves which set we would like?
    Sorry to be taking up your time on this as I'm sure you are very busy and please don't take it personally but my opinion on this is that your company has taken the moral high ground on this case and effectively been judge and jury on a matter that is still before the court and your decision presumes guilt?
    As a father with a young daughter I will be the first to condone Brett Stewart's actions should he be found guilty, that said I also have a son and if he was treated this way without any admission or proof of guilt I would be supporting him until such time as a decision had been passed down by the court?
    The club has endured a media storm of late (Quite rightly due to some of the actions of certain representatives of the club) but the "beat ups" and sensationalised reporting appear to have influenced your decision (wrongly in my opinion) and I for one don't want to be explaining to my children why all of the players are not in the set when I can't give them an honest and irrefutable reason?
    I appreciate your time on this matter
    Bob


    No reply to my last email to them on Wednesday at 4.30
     
  12. mwsneagle

    mwsneagle Active Member

    295
    17
    Ratings:
    +47 / 0
    Don't mean to nit pick but I don't think I would condone Brett's actions if found guilty, perhaps condemn.. ( did I read it wrong?)
    Sorry Vidmar
     
  13. Dan

    Dan Administrator Staff Member Administrator 2016 Tipping Competitor

    32,370
    3,610
    Amsterdam, The Netherlands
    Ratings:
    +5,463 / 74
    I think he meant condemn too
     
  14. vidmar

    vidmar Well-Known Member

    1,675
    250
    Ratings:
    +258 / 0
    massive OOOOOPPPPPSSS!
     
  15. Zep

    Zep Active Member

    1,692
    8
    Ratings:
    +8 / 0
    it is a serious misgiven by them.

    NRL
    News Ltd
    Aust Post

    The list is getting larger of people BS can have a look at for money... (i am sure there is more, but meh.)
     

Share This Page