DeBellin to appeal

[40 years an eagle]

Beattoff and Slimeberg will have to make a statement about De Bellend and Walker's eligibility to play after next thursday's "meeting".
They will be declared either eligible or ineligible and I can't see how it can be the latter.
Clubs will have every right to select them if the clowns declare them eligible.

 

[Blucky]

Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of it all starting to come apart at the seams for Turdburgler. First Kent openly disagrees with him on live TV over Cronulla etc. then perhaps three NRL clubs openly play players who he has stood down.

The beginning of the end ?

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Greg Bird is the glasser,

I think you'll find Greg Bird was found not guilty of glassing

Not guilty doesn’t always mean innocent. In Bird’s case, he was initially found guilty at any rate - and the outcome even on appeal was you did it, you lied about it, but we can’t prove it wasn’t accidental in the course of preventing her self-harming (which is what he eventually claimed after he stopped lying about his mate being responsible for her injuries). So basically he used the Greg & Sally strategy and it worked (again). A lot different to Snake’s case.

[emphasis added]
Not sure why you are introducing 'innocent' into the equation. Snake was not found innocent either.
And yes Bird's case was a lot different to Snake's except it was exactly the same in one way, namely, regardless of what the court decides, the jury of public opinion has made its verdict.

You said it, ‘Bird is the glasser’. Even though the court, with the benefit of actually hearing the evidence, found not guilty. The court did not say 'you did it' but that matters little, you (and no doubt 1000s of others) are convinced the finding was 'you did it', to the point you defend your right to post that on a public forum!

I agree with much of your commentary on this general topic, but not this. In fact this is why Greenberg is desperate to limit the damage the game suffers with every new scandal or allegation. Because an ultimate finding of guilty or not guilty matters little, the damage is done and in the main cannot be undone.

 

[Loobs]

Anyone see Luke Lewis comments on NRL 360

Wasn’t referring to a specific case just the issue of women in general

They had blokes bandying around all sorts of excuses for bad behaviour including James Graham saying it was because they copped so many collisions!!

Lewis just said it’s garbage. He said f you don’t have the moral code to respect women then get the hell out of the game. Was really vehement. Said it’s a matter of personal responsibility not all this garbage about not being educated enough .

F..ck me do you really need to be educated about this stuff.Are they born in a jungle ...

Good to see a bloke say it how it is ... not all this politically correct sitting on the fence.

Wacky idea alert: How about just be respectful to ALL humans.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Wacky idea alert: How about just be respectful to ALL humans.

Of course, but a little reminiscent of 'White Lives matter'?
Problem (as I'm sure you know well) is that it is women who cop the brunt of being dealt with disrespectfully, way, way more than men. In the extreme they are raped or turn up dead stuffed in a suitcase. It happens, and again and again.

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

My Barrister mate reckons you can’t retrospectively enforce a rule and the fact it’s not yet in place means it’s not enforceable for those indiscretions until it is.

Meaning De Bellin will ( although nothing is guaranteed of course) win and that decision will also transpose to Napa, Bolton, May and Walker.

 

[BOZO]

Plenty of people on remand who are yet to be convicted of anything.

When a person is remanded in custody it means that they will be detained in a prison until a later date when a trial or sentencing hearing will take place
The players that the NRL are taking action against are not in remand .

 

[manlyfan76]

[1119968, member: 801"]Of course, but a little reminiscent of 'White Lives matter'?
Problem (as I'm sure you know well) is that it is women who cop the brunt of being dealt with disrespectfully, way, way more than men. In the extreme they are raped or turn up dead stuffed in a suitcase. It happens, and again and again.[/QUOTE]

Then there is #MeToo and my recently departed mate Keith had this to say...

IF you make it to the end then #MeToo

 

[HappilyManly]

When a person is remanded in custody it means that they will be detained in a prison until a later date when a trial or sentencing hearing will take place
The players that the NRL are taking action against are not in remand .

Point is that in both cases the individual has not been convicted and is deemed to be innocent in the eyes of the law

 

[yokahontas]

When a person is remanded in custody it means that they will be detained in a prison until a later date when a trial or sentencing hearing will take place
The players that the NRL are taking action against are not in remand .

I know what it means, thanks for the definition anyway.

The point is that you can bleat ‘innocent until proven guilty’ til the cows come home. There are plenty of people not yet proven guilty of anything who are sitting in cells. A suspension on full pay is pretty small beans compared to that.

 

[BOZO]

Point is that in both cases the individual has not been convicted and is deemed to be innocent in the eyes of the law

That is right and until they are proven guilty the NRL should not discriminate them

 

[BOZO]

I know what it means, thanks for the definition anyway.

The point is that you can bleat ‘innocent until proven guilty’ til the cows come home. There are plenty of people not yet proven guilty of anything who are sitting in cells. A suspension on full pay is pretty small beans compared to that.

I understand what you are saying but players like Walker and the St George fellow are not in a prison cell . They free to walk and run and play

 

[Eagles2nv]

Correct me if I am wrong but there are 2 issues here - defamation and authority to suspend.

BellEnds argument was the rule doesn't exist yet and therefore the NRL defamed him by announcing his suspension which hasn't yet been enforced as the rule doesn't formally exist.

In terms of the actual suspension, the NRL said they believe the rule will be in place in the next 48hrs and therefore will suspend him under the formalised rule.

What's unclear is whether the NRL are allowed to impose a ban when it did not exist at the time. Sounds like his lawyers are saying the NRL can't.

 

[yokahontas]

[emphasis added]
Not sure why you are introducing 'innocent' into the equation. Snake was not found innocent either.
And yes Bird's case was a lot different to Snake's except it was exactly the same in one way, namely, regardless of what the court decides, the jury of public opinion has made its verdict.

You said it, ‘Bird is the glasser’. Even though the court, with the benefit of actually hearing the evidence, found not guilty. The court did not say 'you did it' but that matters little, you (and no doubt 1000s of others) are convinced the finding was 'you did it', to the point you defend your right to post that on a public forum!

I agree with much of your commentary on this general topic, but not this. In fact this is why Greenberg is desperate to limit the damage the game suffers with every new scandal or allegation. Because an ultimate finding of guilty or not guilty matters little, the damage is done and in the main cannot be undone.

https://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/...a12a2a20c?sv=972face81701830fa09628ceb7155ea1

Greg Bird was found by the courts, even on appeal, to have been the cause of the injuries to Katie Milligan. What was in dispute, primarily because of the way both parties muddied the waters in court, and because Bird was in a position to afford excellent legal representation, was the intent behind the actions. Unlike Snake’s case, where the finding was that what was alleged to have taken place did not in fact take place, all that the prosecution failed to prove in Bird’s case was the intent. What was alleged to have happened absolutely did happen, and the glass made contact with her face because of his actions. He glassed her, whether it was intentional, careless/reckless, or accidental.

Sometimes you’re found ‘not guilty’ because you’re actually innocent. Sometimes, it’s because the prosecution can’t sufficiently prove the intent behind your actions. I’ve long believed we should have a third option, ‘not proven’, a la Scotland - Bird’s is one of many cases that add to why I think that.

 

[yokahontas]

I understand what you are saying but players like Walker and the St George fellow are not in a prison cell . They free to walk and run and play

I don’t know whether you deliberately miss the point to annoy people, or it just goes way over your head sometimes...

 

[BOZO]

I don’t know whether you deliberately miss the point to annoy people, or it just goes way over your head sometimes...

I apologize as I did not try and deliberately try to annoy you or any one . All I was trying to say is that if the law allows players like Walker to Walk on the streets then the NRL has no right to stop Walker from running on to the field

 

[Highflier]

Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of it all starting to come apart at the seams for Turdburgler. First Kent openly disagrees with him on live TV over Cronulla etc. then perhaps three NRL clubs openly play players who he has stood down.

The beginning of the end ?

We can only hope

 

[Spartan Eagle]

Maybe, just maybe, this is the beginning of it all starting to come apart at the seams for Turdburgler. First Kent openly disagrees with him on live TV over Cronulla etc. then perhaps three NRL clubs openly play players who he has stood down.

The beginning of the end ?

As plausible as it may seem it sounds too good to be true..

 

[wombatgc]

I wouldn’t like to be the bloke he does call out. Strikes me as one tough hombre !

I’m looking forward to him commentating this year. He won’t pull any punches on dud player performances or teams I reckon. If we still had a Marlboro /Solo man he’d be it.

 

[yokahontas]

I apologize as I did not try and deliberately try to annoy you or any one . All I was trying to say is that if the law allows players like Walker to Walk on the streets then the NRL has no right to stop Walker from running on to the field

And what I’m saying is, if the law has the right to keep people in custody before they’re found guilty of anything, employers absolutely have the right to suspend their employees under the same circumstances.