Addin Fonua-Blake

[southsideeagle]

maybe we could have a fight over it ... hope someone smiles at my reply ...

 

[Hamster Huey]

If they aren't smart enough to work out that you simply don't hit on women, then what raft of other mistakes are we going to see/find out about.

I don't care how good they are, there are simply lines that sporting clubs need to serious about and remove players on the basis of those actions.

DV, physical or otherwise, is one.

We are continually asked as a code to send a message, so lets get serious.

You think domestic violence is only perpetrated by men who ‘aren’t smart’?




You do realise most DV does not get reported?

And for real stars, clubs will go to great lengths to ‘protect their investment’…

All very well to draw a line in the sand but it seems the line you are drawing is cosmetic and has nothing to do with stamping out the conditions under which DV is at epidemic proportions.

Not at all SER, but it is a weak person that resorts to it.

Of course it takes a report to make somebody accountable. Once acknowledged by the ARLC after the court process, no matter their status, boot them. Show half the population that you do have their back and the consequences are real for the perpetrators. And if a club is found to have tried to hide it, $1m fine for bringing the game into disrepute.

If we continue to apply a soft touch in the name of compassion for the assailant, we teach the young guys coming through nothing.

 

[maxta]

Getting personal have been physically attacked by a male & found it easy to belt him back with interest, but something about my upbringing for right or wrong - tells me to walk away before striking a woman.
Tough call, because like most ppl here I have done plenty of stupid things & have a nature that likes to give the opportunity for 1 to make mistakes & rewrite the books - the kid sounds perfect for what we lack on the field but undoes the strong value's this club is built on....unfortunate no - not that our opinion will have a bearing....

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Domestic violence and violence against kids should again carry separate penalties in line with the lowness of the act…

My preference though is zero tolerance across the board + mandatory sentences but lawmakers lack the cajones for that type of a leap.

Mandatory sentences, really? So what automatic penalty do you say fits the despicable crime of assaulting a child?

Of course, mandatory sentence means no difference whether the victim is a 4 year old girl, or a hulking 17 year old rugby league prop. No difference whether the assault is a serious act causing injury and trauma, or a mere push delivered in retaliation. No difference between an offender with a terrible record for violence, and someone who's lived a long law-abiding life with no prior record at all...

But sure, please, feel free to show us your 'cajones'!

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Not at all SER, but it is a weak person that resorts to it.

Of course it takes a report to make somebody accountable. Once acknowledged by the ARLC after the court process, no matter their status, boot them. Show half the population that you do have their back and the consequences are real for the perpetrators. And if a club is found to have tried to hide it, $1m fine for bringing the game into disrepute.

If we continue to apply a soft touch in the name of compassion for the assailant, we teach the young guys coming through nothing.

Hey, I'm happy if we never sign anyone convicted of domestic violence. But that doesn't solve the problem of domestic violence, it just means I don't have to feel bad about it while watching the footy.

Demonising the individuals who get caught is counter-productive. It reminds me of the state govt rounding up all the homeless people just before the Sydney Olympics so they weren't cluttering up the streets with the world looking on.

If one in 3 women will be subject to violence at some stage, do you think that might mean one in 3 men might perpetrate violence? It's not me, and I know it's not you, so it must be…Oh dear!!

 

[qldeagle]

Just read that we are looking at signing him, 19yo forward who was sacked by the Dragons at the beginning of the year for alleged assault of his partner

Anybody seen him play ?

Any bloke that would hit his wife has no place in general society. That includes sporting teams.

 

[Briza]

Don't condone violence against women, so might as well shoot everyone that has backhanded their partner.
After all they have no right to ply their trade or exist in society in general.
While we're at it lets bring back the rope.

 

[Loobs]

Mandatory sentences, really? So what automatic penalty do you say fits the despicable crime of assaulting a child?

Of course, mandatory sentence means no difference whether the victim is a 4 year old girl, or a hulking 17 year old rugby league prop. No difference whether the assault is a serious act causing injury and trauma, or a mere push delivered in retaliation. No difference between an offender with a terrible record for violence, and someone who's lived a long law-abiding life with no prior record at all...

But sure, please, feel free to show us your 'cajones'!

What are you on about? I think you've constructed your own little fairytale there...

 

[Loobs]

Mandatory sentences, really? So what automatic penalty do you say fits the despicable crime of assaulting a child?

Of course, mandatory sentence means no difference whether the victim is a 4 year old girl, or a hulking 17 year old rugby league prop. No difference whether the assault is a serious act causing injury and trauma, or a mere push delivered in retaliation. No difference between an offender with a terrible record for violence, and someone who's lived a long law-abiding life with no prior record at all...

But sure, please, feel free to show us your 'cajones'!

Do you actually know what mandatory sentences are? They remove sentencing discretion from the judicature, setting a mandatory minimum sentence. So for instance, a crime against a child could carry a minimum 30 year sentence. If the person has previous convictions you can add on further minimums. Really before you get fired up over something try google. Or study law like some of us have. Sheesh...

 

[Kiwi Eagle]

zzzzzzz zzzzzzzz zzzzzzz

 

[Technical Coach]

Getting personal have been physically attacked by a male & found it easy to belt him back with interest, but something about my upbringing for right or wrong - tells me to walk away before striking a woman.
Tough call, because like most ppl here I have done plenty of stupid things & have a nature that likes to give the opportunity for 1 to make mistakes & rewrite the books - the kid sounds perfect for what we lack on the field but undoes the strong value's this club is built on....unfortunate no - not that our opinion will have a bearing....

Hmm seems like going off the above observation this site is made up of mostly people who have done plenty of stupid things, if this is the case who are we to have an opinion on how the club is run or offering Technical advice on how to create the perfect team.

 

[maxta]

Hmm seems like going off the above observation this site is made up of mostly people who have done plenty of stupid things, if this is the case who are we to have an opinion on how the club is run or offering Technical advice on how to create the perfect team.

Thing is, only a liar will pretend they haven't done silly things, its part of life....& we certainly don't want anyone fake enough to try convince ppl on an NRL supporters site they are technically gifted with bluff & fabrication - that's pretty silly & immoral in itself
The backbone of Manlys proud history features players & coach who are real & sorry to burst your bubble
...many have made mistakes, maybe because they're not technical coaches hiding behind a keyboard preaching right from wrong, do you really think anyone buys your theory on a perfect team....or person....not even the bloke looking back at you in the mirror believes you.

 

[Eagleheart]

Violence against woman is unacceptable.......Full stop.......!

Our sporting bodies need to send a clear message, if you are found guilty of beating a woman you are banned for life.......simple. We are not talking about someone snorting some cocaine or stealing mobile phones, both of these are just idiotic but very different to DV.

* Over 12 months, on average, one woman is killed every week as a result of intimate partner violence.
* A woman is most likely to be killed by her male partner in her home.

If anyone needs to see more stats about DV in Australia go to this website:
http://www.whiteribbon.org.au/white-ribbon-importance

Intimate partner violence is an extremely serious problem that affects many, many lives and as a community we need to make a stand against this and not condone it or trivialise it in any way.

 

[double hoops]

Gee this thread degenerated.

If domestic violence is going to be argued about.

Can people at least call a spade a spade and not a blunt instrument a bloody coat hanger.

Domestic Violence is a rediculously broad term.

When someone kills there partner or child. Can we as society call that person a murderer. I suggest the DV label assists no one.

A DV order is a civil agreement on a piece of paper to be of good behaviour. It is a way a trying to prevent violence from occurring. When violence to the extent of murder occurs I am not sure that piece of paper helps in any way.

Not being of good behaviour has been found to include things as minor as not passing a tv remote or saying ur a bitch.

So let's not see that word domestic violence and start discussing murder.

Let's remember that we have signed a 19 year old kid to play football. His charge was common assault.

This is the lowest class of assault which generally means the victim did not have any identifiable injury or bruise as a result.

Any reference to murder here is simply not appropriate and entirely unwarranted.

 

[Eagleheart]

Gee this thread degenerated.

If domestic violence is going to be argued about.

Can people at least call a spade a spade and not a blunt instrument a bloody coat hanger.

Domestic Violence is a rediculously broad term.

When someone kills there partner or child. Can we as society call that person a murderer. I suggest the DV label assists no one.

A DV order is a civil agreement on a piece of paper to be of good behaviour. It is a way a trying to prevent violence from occurring. When violence to the extent of murder occurs I am not sure that piece of paper helps in any way.

Not being of good behaviour has been found to include things as minor as not passing a tv remote or saying ur a bitch.

So let's not see that word domestic violence and start discussing murder.

Let's remember that we have signed a 19 year old kid to play football. His charge was common assault.

This is the lowest class of assault which generally means the victim did not have any identifiable injury or bruise as a result.

Any reference to murder here is simply not appropriate and entirely unwarranted.

DV can lead to murder....!

 

[Briza]

Pissing me off could lead to murder, but unfortunately it hasn't been made a crime and numerous people succeed at it in a daily basis.

 

[Stevo]

I just felt I also should add that I am totally against violence against women. Everyone else is doing it.

There's nothing wrong with a little backhand if they get lippy though.

 

[Hamster Huey]

Hey, I'm happy if we never sign anyone convicted of domestic violence. But that doesn't solve the problem of domestic violence, it just means I don't have to feel bad about it while watching the footy.

Demonising the individuals who get caught is counter-productive. It reminds me of the state govt rounding up all the homeless people just before the Sydney Olympics so they weren't cluttering up the streets with the world looking on.

If one in 3 women will be subject to violence at some stage, do you think that might mean one in 3 men might perpetrate violence? It's not me, and I know it's not you, so it must be…Oh dear!!

I've often wondered why in the use of that stat, it's assumed that in each instance a woman has indicated violence was carried out against her, it must mean they all have their own specific man. That's the only way you'll come to the conclusion that 1-in-3 woman affected must equal 1-in-3 blokes are guilty.

Or is the obvious fact that one pathetic sub-human is quite capable of conducting his foul, cowardly attacks against multiple women. As it appears to be a trait amongst these low-lifes to move from one target to another, I'd suggest that far, far less than 1-in-3 males are involved.

It's the job of us men to stand up against them and the consequences have to be swift and painful, especially if they're young. Actions, and against high profile or public identities, will go a long way to assisting and educating that this behaviour is not acceptable. It won't solve it, but I don't see the point in questioning it either.

 

[Kiwi Eagle]

I just felt I also should add that I am totally against violence against women. Everyone else is doing it.

There's nothing wrong with a little backhand if they get lippy though.

Or if they won't cook the eggs properly

 

[cherry_poppins]

Don't condone violence against women, so might as well shoot everyone that has backhanded their partner.
After all they have no right to ply their trade or exist in society in general.
While we're at it lets bring back the rope.

I'm all for bringing back the rope

For a backhand you should get a choice of 6 months on the inside or having woman basher tattooed on your forehead

Actually woman bashing should get 10 years, there's no excuse

Hospitalisation of a child or woman should be a life sentence

Rape and molestation, hang them on a low drop, instead of instant death i want to see them wriggle

But that hardline stance needs a much greater burden of proof, as such every house would have cctv with say 1 month record

These tapes would only be viewed on report of these crimes, with murder the only exception

Who pays? Council rates they do **** all with that money anyway they can lose it for a couple months