DeBellin to appeal

[BOZO]

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.

After a few goes I finally got it ! Thank you

 

[BOZO]

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.

After a few goes I finally got it ! Thank you

 

[40 years an eagle]

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.

I totally agree and with due respect I ask; are the players employees of the NRL or employees of the club that contracts them, befamily's them and pays them?

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Greg Bird was found by the courts, even on appeal, to have been the cause of the injuries to Katie Milligan

Wrong. And it's wrong even according to the very article you yourself just quoted. The Judge actually said he wasn't the cause.

"Judge Michael Finnane said he believed the versions given by the pair at the appeal hearing, who had said Ms Milligans (injuries) were caused accidentally and without any malice.
He accepted that it was a highly agitated Ms Milligan, high on a cocktail of prescription drugs and alcohol, threatened to strike her boyfriend in anger.
He also accepted Bird's claim that he had simply grabbed his girlfriend's wrists in a bid to prevent injury to himself.
"In my opinion Mr Bird did not in any way deliberately act to cause any injury to Ms Milligan," Judge Finnane said."

Why you would misquote the article and the judge's findings I have no idea.

 

[yokahontas]

I totally agree and with due respect I ask; are the players employees of the NRL or employees of the club that contracts them, befamily's them and pays them?

That’s actually a really tricky one, given that, while the clubs do select and contract the players they choose, the contracts have to be registered by the NRL. That, and the financial grants provided by the NRL to each club, which ostensibly pay the players’ salaries...it’s a real mixed bag.

 

[niccipops]

To lighten the mood
Meanwhile @globaleagle 's house......

 

[yokahontas]

Wrong. And it's wrong even according to the very article you yourself just quoted. The Judge actually said he wasn't the cause.

"Judge Michael Finnane said he believed the versions given by the pair at the appeal hearing, who had said Ms Milligans (injuries) were caused accidentally and without any malice.
He accepted that it was a highly agitated Ms Milligan, high on a cocktail of prescription drugs and alcohol, threatened to strike her boyfriend in anger.
He also accepted Bird's claim that he had simply grabbed his girlfriend's wrists in a bid to prevent injury to himself.
"In my opinion Mr Bird did not in any way deliberately act to cause any injury to Ms Milligan," Judge Finnane said."

Why you would misquote the article and the judge's findings I have no idea.

‘Did not deliberately act to cause the injuries’ is NOT the same as ‘did not cause the injuries’.

The bit you omitted from the end of that quotation from Finnane is telling:

"Unfortunately, perhaps because he's stronger than her, her wrist was forced backwards, perhaps she pulled her wrist backwards, (or) perhaps both things happened.

"(But) in my opinion ... it was not caused intentionally or recklessly, and the prosecution has therefore failed to prove its case”.

Failed to prove it was caused intentionally or recklessly. Not ‘it didn’t happen’.

We dealt with a job at work a little while back where a man shot his wife in the head. It hasn’t been finalised in court yet, but from everything we know from what happened on the night, and the charges that have since been laid, it was unintentional. Regardless, old mate DID shoot his wife, just like Greg Bird DID glass Katie Milligan.

I’m not going to argue semantics all night.

 

[brad]

That's

Was speaking to a legal eagle today and based on the news today he said it would be very dangerous to retrospectively ban both players. He said that once the policy is in force then anything new only counts.

If so should we select Walker to play anyway?

That's what I would have thought, if a new rule is put in place it's for future not past. Walker should also be free to play ( court case pending).

 

[40 years an eagle]

That’s actually a really tricky one, given that, while the clubs do select and contract the players they choose, the contracts have to be registered by the NRL. That, and the financial grants provided by the NRL to each club, which ostensibly pay the players’ salaries...it’s a real mixed bag.

It is, and my understanding is that player contracts need to be registered with the NRL for salary cap compliance and a player's "suitability of participation" purposes ONLY.
Yes, clubs pay their chosen players from NRL grant monies but it is the club's money to employ their players of choice.

Just another can of worms my friend.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

‘Did not deliberately act to cause the injuries’ is NOT the same as ‘did not cause the injuries’.

OK. Boniface is mightily pissed off, and hurls a glass at Hyacinth, who instinctively defends herself by raising her plate of buffalo wings. The glass is deflected away from Hyacinth but it goes on to instead strike Ferdinand, who was minding his own business a few feet away. Ferdinand sustains facial injuries as a result.

On your logic, Hyacinth caused Ferdinand’s injuries and should be publicly denounced as ‘a glasser’.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Or to put it another way... you can call Bird a glasser, but only if you reject the evidence they gave in court.
The judge was there, he believed them, but true, you don't have to.
However this is exactly the same frustration I've felt defending Snake from people who say he only got off on a technicality or because he had good lawyers. In the end people believe what they want to believe.

 

[yokahontas]

OK. Boniface is mightily pissed off, and hurls a glass at Hyacinth, who instinctively defends herself by raising her plate of buffalo wings. The glass is deflected away from Hyacinth but it goes on to instead strike Ferdinand, who was minding his own business a few feet away. Ferdinand sustains facial injuries as a result.

On your logic, Hyacinth caused Ferdinand’s injuries and should be publicly denounced as ‘a glasser’.

There’s a guy sitting in gaol for the manslaughter of Const. Bill Crews, who was in fact shot by a fellow copper. There are all sorts of grey areas to this stuff.

And no, if you chucked the glass, you’re responsible for the injuries caused, regardless of whether the person it hit was the one you intended to hit or not. I’m not sure it specifically comes under the definition of ‘glassing’, however - I’d normally take ‘glassing’ to mean actually hitting someone with the glass at close quarters rather than throwing it at them. Like throwing a knife at someone is not quite the same action as stabbing.

But we’re not talking about any third party being involved between Bird and Milligan. And as Justice Finnane said, it was intent that the prosecution failed to prove. He went on to say that it may have been Bird pushing the glass towards her face, her trying to pull her arms out of his grip, or a combination of both, that led to the injuries. Either way, his actions led to the glass connecting with her face.

And his credibility was well and truly shot by then, after all the lies he told initially. If you want to believe the last iteration of the story, that’s up to you. I don’t. Just like I am not inclined to believe the later iterations of the Walker saga over the statements given at the time of the incident. I’ve got a pretty reasonable grasp of how human behaviour tends to operate.

 

[Bearfax]

After a few goes I finally got it ! Thank you

Actually in a legal sense that is not correct. A court can hold someone in custody for a serious matter, usually because of fear of flight or of the person committing further offences, given his criminal history. There are clear guide lines for bail, and bail is aimed at ensuring the person attends court to answer to the charges, not because he or she is deemed guilty. Often bail is refused because the person has had previous matters where they have taken flight, and has a serious history of offending, or the material supplied by the police in the initial hearing or even a mention, is such that the magistrate is convinced that there is a strong probability of guilt. And of course if the offender is charged with an indictable matter that can only be dealt with at district court, and has pleaded guilty, the person would obviously be held in custody. But in all cases it is the judiciary that makes that decision, not the public, employers, media etc

 

[yokahontas]

Or to put it another way... you can call Bird a glasser, but only if you reject the evidence they gave in court.
The judge was there, he believed them, but true, you don't have to.
However this is exactly the same frustration I've felt defending Snake from people who say he only got off on a technicality or because he had good lawyers. In the end people believe what they want to believe.

Let’s not forget that another magistrate was in fact convinced of Bird’s guilt, too. And it’s another case where what she was saying changed substantially from the time of the incident to the time of the successful appeal.

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...0fa933239?sv=c18c3cfd759b56ea4c4cb61e78ffdb98

 

[niccipops]

My name's not Greg and stop looking at me!

 

[MadMarcus]

Actually in a legal sense that is not correct. A court can hold someone in custody for a serious matter, usually because of fear of flight or of the person committing further offences, given his criminal history. There are clear guide lines for bail, and bail is aimed at ensuring the person attends court to answer to the charges, not because he or she is deemed guilty. Often bail is refused because the person has had previous matters where they have taken flight, and has a serious history of offending, or the material supplied by the police in the initial hearing or even a mention, is such that the magistrate is convinced that there is a strong probability of guilt. And of course if the offender is charged with an indictable matter that can only be dealt with at district court, and has pleaded guilty, the person would obviously be held in custody. But in all cases it is the judiciary that makes that decision, not the public, employers, media etc

NRL must use the same reasoning. If they let de Bellin play they must think it’s likely that it would cause him to sexually assault someone or skip the country.

 

[BOZO]

Actually in a legal sense that is not correct. A court can hold someone in custody for a serious matter, usually because of fear of flight or of the person committing further offences, given his criminal history. There are clear guide lines for bail, and bail is aimed at ensuring the person attends court to answer to the charges, not because he or she is deemed guilty. Often bail is refused because the person has had previous matters where they have taken flight, and has a serious history of offending, or the material supplied by the police in the initial hearing or even a mention, is such that the magistrate is convinced that there is a strong probability of guilt. And of course if the offender is charged with an indictable matter that can only be dealt with at district court, and has pleaded guilty, the person would obviously be held in custody. But in all cases it is the judiciary that makes that decision, not the public, employers, media etc

That makes sense to me

 

[BOZO]

NRL must use the same reasoning. If they let de Bellin play they must think it’s likely that it would cause him to sexually assault someone or skip the country.

I did not know that deBellin was placed in custody . Last time I heard he was walking the streets . If the law allows him to walk the streets he should be able to run on to the field

 

[Loobs]

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.

Agree but also you have players who are violent towards each other saying don’t hit women but you also then have an idiot like Gallen who was applauded for essentially king hitting another player in the biggest game of the year.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Agree but also you have players who are violent towards each other saying don’t hit women but you also then have an idiot like Gallen who was applauded for essentially king hitting another player in the biggest game of the year.

Yes I know what you are getting at and I don't disagree. Just want some matches to talk about, this off season is doing my head in.