JDB Federal Court Challenge

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
That is not the crux. Ask Pearce Carney Barber all suspended with no criminal charge.

You keep mixing the issue Bear. People get suspended / pay with leave / sacked all the time over non criminal indiscretions. God help us all if it requires a criminal conviction to get rid of a person from any workplace for a while or for good, let alone a rugby league workplace !

This right to innocence until proven guilty has ZERO to do with workplace law. It applies to the CRIMINAL TRIAL at hand and that’s it .Not sure why that’s so difficult to understand. To suggest otherwise is totally false. An employer does not require a criminal conviction to sanction an employee.Ramifications in the workplace are determined by the employment contract.Tbis is what they are arguing about. Whether Todd’s law is legally part of that employment contract. His presumption of innocence regarding the sexual assault trial has never been forfeited.

Today’s rule just confused a simple issue. If he simply suspended him for being a goose this goes away.


All those matters were 'proven' on video and put out for the public to see. There was no disputing the evidence which was put over the net and which the players admitted to. The League in those cases did have substantive evidence to take action against all three given the physical evidence it portrayed to the public. Its not so much about whether its a criminal act, its whether an allegation can be proven. In those instances it was..

The matters with DeBellin and Walker are allegations with only witness statements. Big difference when you can view something that the public sees and that which is just alleged. As has been constantly raised, the Stewart issue which so many were convinced he had committed the alleged offence, shows why the League must not assume guilt. So Sue, no I know exactly what I am saying and 34 years as a parole officer working in the courts and gaols gives me some experience at knowing the difference
 
All those matters were 'proven' on video and put out for the public to see. There was no disputing the evidence which was put over the net and which the players admitted to. The League in those cases did have substantive evidence to take action against all three given the physical evidence it portrayed to the public. Its not so much about whether its a criminal act, its whether an allegation can be proven. In those instances it was..

The matters with DeBellin and Walker are allegations with only witness statements. Big difference when you can view something that the public sees and that which is just alleged. As has been constantly raised, the Stewart issue which so many were convinced he had committed the alleged offence, shows why the League must not assume guilt. So Sue, no I know exactly what I am saying and 34 years as a parole officer working in the courts and gaols gives me some experience at knowing the difference
Firstly Brett Stewart got 4 weeks suspension for bringing the game into disrepute, not for facing a criminal charge. They got it wrong yes but it was an internal NRL suspension to discourage bad behaviour.They made a bad call based on the information at the time and four weeks was hardly an out of control suspension, especially given Brett’s very recent face of the game status. Brett’s issues were caused by an incompetent police and DPP pursuit with no evidence that lasted 2 years which was an absolute disgrace.

Secondly if you can’t tell the difference between the CRIMINAL presumption of innocence that attaches to the case of Crown v Jack DeBellin and the CIVIL Administrative / Commercial Law proceedings deciding the legality of a condition of a private workplace agreement in De Bellin v NRL then you do need to brush up on your civil law Bear.It has significantly different onus of proof and evidentiary requirements to criminal law.

There is never a requirement for a criminal conviction to be committed for penalties to be invoked in a workplace agreement unless the agreement specifically states that, and no employer would be foolish enough to countenance that.To suggest workplace sanctions be based on actual criminal convictions is ludicrous and unworkeable.

The current case will be decided on a mixture of natural justice and commercial considerations and has very little to do at all with the fact that De Bellin has not been found guilty of a criminal offence.At the very best it will be one of many considerations as to the legality of a rule introduced to protect the NRLs brand.

Do you seriously think this court case would actually be occurring if Jack was being denied a fundamental constitutional and legal right like you suggest? If that right existed and was being breached do you think the Federal Court would have granted the NRL an audience.?Answer is NO.

That is the law of the land and how it operates im afraid.

And if De Bellin had been suspended under the old bringing the game into disrepute rule he would not have a leg to stand on at all, because he would have been suspended for being a GOOSE which after hearing this lack of education rubbish, I’ve absolutely no doubt he is.

The only thing even making his guilt or lack of guilt in the criminal proceedings even a part consideration in the current hearing is Toddy’s ridiculous rule tying suspension to the possibility of being convicted of a criminal offence. It has now become one of many factors to consider, but in no way has it become some basic constitutional right he has suddenly been blessed with in a Federal Court hearing that renders all other argument irrelevant ... and hence the hearing continues.

Bring back the old rule. Punish the dickheads like De Bellin and Walker for a few weeks and let the courts do the rest. Toddy has created such an unnecessary ****fight here.
 
Last edited:
I think there is confusion regarding what the League's aims are and whether this acts in contravention of what is lawful. The League bases its decisions on the question of BEHAVIOUR bringing the game into disrepute. It has nothing to do with whether it is for a criminal offence or just a stupid act that puts the game into a poor light. In that the League has every right to take such action.

However, the League has no right to pre judge a behaviour without substantial tangible evidence. Certainly if the player admits to the matter it makes it easy or the evidence is substantive, such as on video. But in any situation where a person is accused, whether for an illicit matter or civil matter, it is contrary to human rights and the presumption of innocence, to take action against that person. The three fellows on video did not try to deny their action and though not necessary contravening the law, in the League's mind their action brought the game into disrepute. Its about behaviour, not just about criminal acts. Its about the image the League wants to project and that is quite reasonable. But in all instances they must ensure there is sufficient tangible evidence that such an act occurred, otherwise they are technically acting illegally. For example if Carney hadn't had a video done of him pissing in his mouth, but it was just a witness statement, they would have insufficient grounds to suspend him.

You rightly stated that Stewart was suspended falsely. Gallop knee jerked. He had a player alleged to have committed a serious illegal act, but he couldn't suspend him on those grounds, so he claimed from one witness that he had been drunk, thereby placing the game into disrepute. He was wrong in doing that.

In any trial a guilty decision can only be reached if the evidence proves 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the person is guilty. Witness statements alone are unlikely to achieve that position, primarily because witnesses often are flawed in their observations and memories of matters. Many witnesses stating much the same thing may be sufficient grounds, but physical evidence is usually the determining factor. The same should apply in our day to day matters. An individual tells you something about someone else. Do you unquestioningly believe that. Even two saying it. If you are sensible you will either ignore it or attempt to impartially verify it. This is where the League bases fail. They knee jerk, they act partially, they act inconsistently, they react to public pressure in a manner contrary to human rights.

The League has the right to act against behaviour that brings the game into disrepute. But they must first prove beyond reasonable doubt that such behaviour has occurred.
 
I think there is confusion regarding what the League's aims are and whether this acts in contravention of what is lawful. The League bases its decisions on the question of BEHAVIOUR bringing the game into disrepute. It has nothing to do with whether it is for a criminal offence or just a stupid act that puts the game into a poor light. In that the League has every right to take such action.

However, the League has no right to pre judge a behaviour without substantial tangible evidence. Certainly if the player admits to the matter it makes it easy or the evidence is substantive, such as on video. But in any situation where a person is accused, whether for an illicit matter or civil matter, it is contrary to human rights and the presumption of innocence, to take action against that person. The three fellows on video did not try to deny their action and though not necessary contravening the law, in the League's mind their action brought the game into disrepute. Its about behaviour, not just about criminal acts. Its about the image the League wants to project and that is quite reasonable. But in all instances they must ensure there is sufficient tangible evidence that such an act occurred, otherwise they are technically acting illegally. For example if Carney hadn't had a video done of him pissing in his mouth, but it was just a witness statement, they would have insufficient grounds to suspend him.

You rightly stated that Stewart was suspended falsely. Gallop knee jerked. He had a player alleged to have committed a serious illegal act, but he couldn't suspend him on those grounds, so he claimed from one witness that he had been drunk, thereby placing the game into disrepute. He was wrong in doing that.

In any trial a guilty decision can only be reached if the evidence proves 'beyond reasonable doubt' that the person is guilty. Witness statements alone are unlikely to achieve that position, primarily because witnesses often are flawed in their observations and memories of matters. Many witnesses stating much the same thing may be sufficient grounds, but physical evidence is usually the determining factor. The same should apply in our day to day matters. An individual tells you something about someone else. Do you unquestioningly believe that. Even two saying it. If you are sensible you will either ignore it or attempt to impartially verify it. This is where the League bases fail. They knee jerk, they act partially, they act inconsistently, they react to public pressure in a manner contrary to human rights.

The League has the right to act against behaviour that brings the game into disrepute. But they must first prove beyond reasonable doubt that such behaviour has occurred.

Not the case I’m afraid.

Confusing criminal and civil again Bear. It is totally and utterly wrong to say that in every trial there must be evidence showing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The current case of which the NRL is a party is a civil proceeding. There is no requirement for beyond reasonable doubt in a civil trial/ proceeding.It is a criminal burden of proof .The onus of proof in a civil case is BALANCE of PROBABILITIES. Plaintiff v Respondent is totally different to Crown v Defendant . It has to be or very few civil cases could ever be decided.
And the double whammy is the ONUS OF PROOF IS ACTUALLY ON JACK DE BELLIN to prove on the balance of probabilities that the NRL is wrong. He has the onus in this case, while the crown has the onus in his sexual assault case. Huge difference.

Any suspensions the NRL hand out under whatever rule that eventually operates after these courtroom dramas in future will never be questioned in a criminal court. It will always be a civil matter if the aggrieved party contests it and the proceeding will be adjudicated using the civil burden of proof and the onus will always be on the complainant or plaintiff which will be the player. The NRL will never be required to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt as you suggest. It’s all down to the player in the future to prove on the balance of probabilities he has been hard done by.

In reality you can’t expect an organisation whose not in the business of running down criminals to be running around chasing evidence to confirm undeniable criminal guilt before taking some action. Would be total chaos.To impose criminal law burdens of proof on an employer as you suggest is an absolute joke and would never occur in any other workplace.They simply need to use common sense and apply community standards to protect their brand, apply an appropriate suspension and let the court do its work later - like the old system.

And they will not be removing Jacks presumption of innocence at all.!They court will simply be deciding whether the workplace condition imposed by Todd is able to be legally included in the workplace agreement between a player and the NRL.Nothing more , nothing less.Thst will decide Jacks fate. His pending trial will be just one of many factors considered in determining if the rule is legal.

All the rest is noise drummed up by the Toddster.Always the Toddster.Toddy has given Jack a chance. If he’d just said you are gone for a year for being a goose under the old rule and not tied this 11 year rubbish to it he’d be done for but the fool had to play god
 
Last edited:
https://www.sportsradio.com.au/de-b...rovide-anti-violence-against-women-education/


Jack de Belin’s lawyer claims NRL failed to provide anti-violence against women education
3 HOURS AGO
20190418001395642686-original.jpg


Jack de Belin’s lawyers have claimed the NRL failed him by not providing appropriate anti-violence against women education programs. @:mad:

Marcus Einfeld QC made the claims in Federal court as de Belin fights the NRL and ARL Commission’s decision to stand the Dragons forward down while he fights charges of aggravated sexual assault.

The comments were made during closing arguments with Einfled QC also saying that controversy could sometimes be good for sport.

Former NRL player Joel Cain refutes any claim that the NRL doesn’t educate players appropriately, pointing out that the NRL does an extraordinary amount of work with players and their welfare.

“I’ve seen it first hand, the amount the NRL does for NRL players, they can’t possibly do any more, they can’t,” he said.



“Paul Heptonstall and Tony McFadyen, they head up the welfare unit [at the NRL], their heart breaks every time something happens because they physically can’t do any more, they are giving these blokes every opportunity it’s unbelievable.”

Jamie Soward played more than 200 NRL games and has sat through NRL mandatory education sessions which cover off a range of topics, including how to treat women, and says subtle improvements could be made.

“My suggestion would be to do it in smaller groups, because they’re done in larger groups and typically in a Rugby League environment, blokes get embarrassed about maybe asking a question or even saying anything to do in those situations,” Soward said.

“In a large group, you just clock off and wait for it to be finished before walking out,”

“[Players] need to have responsibility for their actions, you can’t hold their hand 24/7, and I was disappointed their lawyer used that in his defense.”
----
WTF :swear:

Is JDB part of the human race, part of society, a cognisant mammal ?
Did the NRL have to teach him how to dress himself and to drive on the left ? :banghead:

I've worked in dozens of Companies and have never had them brief me on Federal and State criminal offences to determine what behavioural courses to attend to be a lawful citizen :cool:

giphy.gif

Absolutely gobsmacked they would come out and say this, shaking my head in disbelief, they would even consider trying to lay that one, that alone would set the "violence against women" cause back years. Mate I have never had to take a formal course, privately or by my employer to know whats right from wrong or how to treat someone, male or female with respect and dignity.
My god, talk about giving footy players let alone males a bad name !!!
 
Maybe the Storms excessive salary cap rorting over an extended period is still having a negative impact in regards to potential sponsorships? Or even its extended association with the grub Cameron Smith after his poor handling and involvement in the Alex Mckinnon tragedy?

Couldn't be anything to do with the sponsor deciding to either save their money or investing in an AFL club instead (it is Melbourne right??), could it?

Nope, Melbourne obviously lost a sponsor because of off field incidents involving players from other clubs located in another city.

The NRL is using some very flimsy tactics to try and win this.
 
Couldn't be anything to do with the sponsor deciding to either save their money or investing in an AFL club instead (it is Melbourne right??), could it?

Nope, Melbourne obviously lost a sponsor because of off field incidents involving players from other clubs located in another city.

The NRL is using some very flimsy tactics to try and win this.
I see your point V8 but Jacks lack of education rubbish just made the NRL look a whole lot better.
What a disgraceful pitiful claim from a total goose.
How would a bloke even raise this given the situation he is in. It is total lunacy and gives a good insight into the man.The stories I’ve been hearing about him ain’t good and this makes it pretty easy to believe them.
 
Last edited:
Absolutely gobsmacked they would come out and say this, shaking my head in disbelief, they would even consider trying to lay that one, that alone would set the "violence against women" cause back years. Mate I have never had to take a formal course, privately or by my employer to know whats right from wrong or how to treat someone, male or female with respect and dignity.
My god, talk about giving footy players let alone males a bad name !!!
What's more perplexing is that this is not even JDB's criminal trial. :wondering:

Rather a long bow to claim that the employer can't stand him down because any wrong doings were due to the NRL's failure to give JDB a list of dos and don'ts :banghead:

NRL contracts will now require the Law Society's Criminal Code booklet attachment :swear:
 
  • 🤝
Reactions: Sue
What's more perplexing is that this is not even JDB's criminal trial. :wondering:

Rather a long bow to claim that the employer can't stand him down because any wrong doings were due to the NRL's failure to give JDB a list of dos and don'ts :banghead:

NRL contracts will now require the Law Society's Criminal Code booklet attachment :swear:

Forgot about the criminal trial, forget about his case against the NRL, from what his own lawyers have just come out and stated, If at 28 years of age, he still needs an employer to tell him how act in society, then he has some serious problems.

For his public image this is just dumb stuff, trying to find an escape route, passing the buck of responsibility, incredibly stupid thing to do.

I wonder what his parents must be thinking reading that he still needs to be told at 28 how to act.
 
@Sue and @Bearfax, I have enjoyed reading your points and counter points, very informative and well presented on both sides. Just thought I would make mention of it.
And also score some browny points in case I get myself into trouble in future, either criminally or civil for a discount rate :wasntme: Never be to careful ya know o_O
 
If I didnt dislikeToddys law so much I’d be death riding this clown re the current case. Pity he’s the test case.
The terrible irony is Toddy could have given him a big suspension under the old disrepute rule and it would not have been challenged. Now he could be playing in two weeks.
 
@Sue and @Bearfax, I have enjoyed reading your points and counter points, very informative and well presented on both sides. Just thought I would make mention of it.
And also score some browny points in case I get myself into trouble in future, either criminally or civil for a discount rate :wasntme: Never be to careful ya know o_O
The Bear is a great fan like me and I’m always interested in his thoughtful posts. Just disagree on this one in a technical sense but the key is we both have a similar distaste for the Turd.
More important is beating those filthy dragons tomorrow.
 
It is truly laughable that a grown human apparantly needs to be instructed by his employer that raping and hurting people is bad.

What the fk was this fools parents doing for the past 20 something years.?
 
True, but what may have a bearing is evidence as to his behaviour on the night in question, in the lead up to the incident. Quite apart from the numerous people who observed his behaviour (including towards women), every chance that at least one of the venues he visited has CCTV footage that may be used - for one reason or another - in his criminal trial. That’s the sort of thing his lawyers may be trying to pre-emptively make excuses for.
Agree Yoka This is the only possible reason they would raise this now. A preemptive strike against what they know is coming. Otherwise it’s just crazy.
 
Sue I don't give a sh*t, excuse the ex expression, in my defence of what I have argued from the perspective of those looking at this from a distance

I was a high profile union official in a State Government Department who had to defend many people in various departments over questionable actions (and despite media allegatuions never made a cent out of it. Completely voluntary with no reduction of work load except when I was recruited for 18 month by the PSA because of my effectiveness for an identical wage). Won many issues against false negative action, including at the Industrial Court.

I recall all to well two prominent union colleagues who dared to challenge a commissioner at the time. The Department played the game well against an inexperienced union rep and those two members, one an office manager on the North Coast, were crucified by allegations that effectively had no basis(I read the full allegations). The entire office suffered because the commissioner closed the office on spurious grounds. But the union rep was naive and allowed the court to defer decision on the claim that there were more allegations to be added (there weren't) Those two, who were among the most committed to welfare of staff I have known, experienced, based on those allegations, ongoing intimidation for almost 2 years until the matter was finalised and the Department were found at fault with minimal punishment. One of those attacked sued and won $30,000 compensation. Both were forced to early retirement on psychological grounds and one never recovered.

The thing is those in charge will always walk away unaffected even when found at fault. The major newspapers for example don't report news, they interpret news to titillate their audience, to distort the news to meet the need of their advertisers, and if they are found out, which is often, they aqree, when rarely challenged, to compensate minimally and without publication often, for reduced amounts by those able to contest and usually for an agreed settlement for much less out of court (eg Stewart) as it is too costly to go further. The newspapers will meet the loss in the next questionable story. Again I know this for a fact because I have seen the distortions they have made regarding the Department I worked for and issues of which I am well informed.

So yes. I am a very strong believer in our system, even if its abused and naïve people seek to challenge it. I've seen far too much of where individual rights are trampled on by the powers that run us. Just imagine if in two years DeBellin, in a court case that could last that long is found not guilt. If we don't oppose this NRL action who are all stained with guilt
 
Sue I don't give a sh*t, excuse the ex expression, in my defence of what I have argued from the perspective of those looking at this from a distance

I was a high profile union official in a State Government Department who had to defend many people in various departments over questionable actions (and despite media allegatuions never made a cent out of it. Completely voluntary with no reduction of work load except when I was recruited for 18 month by the PSA because of my effectiveness for an identical wage). Won many issues against false negative action, including at the Industrial Court.

I recall all to well two prominent union colleagues who dared to challenge a commissioner at the time. The Department played the game well against an inexperienced union rep and those two members, one an office manager on the North Coast, were crucified by allegations that effectively had no basis(I read the full allegations). The entire office suffered because the commissioner closed the office on spurious grounds. But the union rep was naive and allowed the court to defer decision on the claim that there were more allegations to be added (there weren't) Those two, who were among the most committed to welfare of staff I have known, experienced, based on those allegations, ongoing intimidation for almost 2 years until the matter was finalised and the Department were found at fault with minimal punishment. One of those attacked sued and won $30,000 compensation. Both were forced to early retirement on psychological grounds and one never recovered.

The thing is those in charge will always walk away unaffected even when found at fault. The major newspapers for example don't report news, they interpret news to titillate their audience, to distort the news to meet the need of their advertisers, and if they are found out, which is often, they aqree, when rarely challenged, to compensate minimally and without publication often, for reduced amounts by those able to contest and usually for an agreed settlement for much less out of court (eg Stewart) as it is too costly to go further. The newspapers will meet the loss in the next questionable story. Again I know this for a fact because I have seen the distortions they have made regarding the Department I worked for and issues of which I am well informed.

So yes. I am a very strong believer in our system, even if its abused and naïve people seek to challenge it. I've seen far too much of where individual rights are trampled on by the powers that run us. Just imagine if in two years DeBellin, in a court case that could last that long is found not guilt. If we don't oppose this NRL action who are all stained with guilt

Not sure if you read my posts fully.I don’t agree with his rule either bear. That must be obvious. I hate it and say so regularly.

The old one was absolutely fine.Suspend them for being a goose. Let the courts decide after that if they are convicted.

Where i disagree with you is that you can’t impose criminal levels of proof on private employers in regards to sanctioning employees when they are running a business. It does not happen in any workplace I have ever encountered. It is simply not viable.They have a right to determine who is a goose and doesn’t meet their standards.Not yours , not mine , theirs!

I employ quite a few people and believe me if one of them got charged with rape and complained I didn’t educate them not to rape women I would not only sack him id give him a hiding on the way out the door and I wouldn’t give a toss if he got found not guilty .It’s a business not a charity for grubs.They certainly wouldn’t be getting paid leave ! Typical nanny state rubbish. Let’s rush to protect the rights of the grub and not give a toss about the alleged victim or the poor sod who has the bad luck to employ the clown.

You can’t have blokes running amok and not being sanctioned because their behaviour falls short of a criminal courts level of proof while the business suffers.De Bellin is a goose. He should have been suspended for his exploits. They were disgraceful even if not eventually proven to be criminal. In fact he should be given double for his latest education rubbish in my book.As I said if I didn’t hate the rule I’d be death riding this grub next week.

In a general sense I think a privately owned business should be able to make decisions on the type of people they want to employ without being told they need to meet a level of proof reserved for a criminal conviction to sanction them.They pay the damn bills and shouldn’t have to cindone grubs because they don’t qualify as convicted criminals. Todds rule is bull**** but it doesn’t mean the old one was wrong.The NRL will never have to meet a criminal burden of proof in sanctioning a player because they will never be challenged in a criminal court and will never bear the onus of civil proof if they are.That’s just a fact It won’t happen and nor should it.

You disagree. Let’s move on. It was a good debate conducted with respect in my view.
 
Last edited:
You rightly stated that Stewart was suspended falsely. Gallop knee jerked. He had a player alleged to have committed a serious illegal act, but he couldn't suspend him on those grounds, so he claimed from one witness that he had been drunk, thereby placing the game into disrepute. He was wrong in doing that.

The worst part about that was that every man and his dog knew the real reason Snake got suspended. The NRL made up that being drunk excuse to avoid the legal minefield we're currently seeing (Edit: remember that Gallop is a lawyer by profession and he would have known that actually suspending Snake for the sexual assault charges was fraught with legal danger). If Snake was really suspended for bringing the game into disrepute by being drunk at the Manly season launch, why wasn't Choc suspended as well for getting drunk at the same function and punching a club sponsor?
 
Last edited:
I don’t agree with his rule either bear. That must be obvious. I hate it.

The old one was fine.Susprnd them for being a goose. Let the courts decide after that.The NRL will never be held to beyond reasonable doubt as they will never be in a criminal court. Just a fact.

Where i disagree with you is that you can’t impose criminal levels of proof on private employers when they are running a business. It does not happen in any workplace I have ever encountered. Never happens.

You can’t have blokes running amok and not being sanctioned because their behaviour falls short of a criminal courts level of proof while the business suffers.De Bellin is a goose. He should have been suspended for his exploits. They were disgraceful even if not eventually proven to be criminal. In fact he should be given double for his latest education rubbish in my book.As I said if I didn’t hate the rule I’d be death riding this grub next week.

In a general sense I think a privately owned business should be able to make decisions on the type of people they want to employ without being told they need to meet a level of proof reserved for a criminal conviction to punt them.They pay the damn bills.Todds way is bull****. The previous way was fine.

You disagree. Let’s move on. It was a good debate conducted with respect in my view.


So you've prejudged DeBellin. You may be right...but you may be wrong. That's the flaw in the argument. You've read the papers and seem to have accepted their slant on events. I can tell you from experience there are many women out there out to make a buck at some foolish male's expense (gold diggers we call them). Some are very aggressive. Perhaps I should introduce you to the very ordinary young woman who knifed her girlfriend almost to death. Or the woman who cut her partner's penis off...yes it happened here in Oz and I supervised her. Or perhaps the woman I had to drag of a fellow parole officer who was trying to knife her to death. Or the woman who knifed her husband to death with a kitchen knife, to name a small number. Happens far more often than you think and take that from someone who has seen the cases. This is becoming a gender issues and that's dangerous. I'm actually a feminist at heart thanks to a long term relationship with a modern thinking woman who I still know forty years on, who had me read much feminist material back in the 70s. Strongly in agreement with many of those tenets. But I'm also a realist. I've known many males assaulted by females and vice versa. Certainly males have an advantage in size and strength, but not always. Assault is bad no matter the issues and many women, as I've observed over the years can be just as nasty. The point I'm making is that yes if DeBellin and Walker are guilty then let the law deal with it and certainly the NRL has then the right to action. We have no place for people who assault any other person.
 
If you mean i prejudged them for being gooses whose behaviour required suspension then yes I have. If you mean I am prejudging their criminal guilt then no I’m not and that’s the point!

I could not give a toss if they are guilty or not. That’s why the old rule worked and the new one is totally flawed tying the suspension to criminality.Under the old rule no one was even referring to criminal issues. They were suspended for just being grubs and the courts worked the rest out.

In my book chasing your Mrs around the front yard over a video game resulting in her calling the cops after a litany of priors makes you worthy of suspension for being a goose.

In my book group sex with a young woman after a drunken public night on the piss with a mate with your Mrs at home pregnant resulting in the doctors and cops being involved then seeking absolution because your boss didn’t tell you not to rape women makes you a bigger goose and worthy of suspension, even if the woman consented.


It doesn’t have to be criminal to embarrass an employer , adversely effect his business , hurt a victim or embarrass a family and thus warrant an employer sanction. It’s not rocket science and anyone thinks the two blokes above have not behaved like gooses and don’t deserve some hefty time off work then they must have had some pretty big nights or employed some real ****wits.

Nanny state rubbish in the new world of NO PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.

I’m sure there are plenty of employers on this site.

Question without notice. Anyone here who would not sanction or sack a bloke who was on rape charges, blamed you for not knowing it was wrong to to rape women and also throw in an 18th month bail period with conditions that can often adversely effect the employer while he waits to find out if he will be convicted? Yeah right No problems ! Customers won’t mind .Other female employees would love it. All good!
Sorry real world doesn’t work like that.

It’s totally laughable.

Yet some expect the NRL to do just that.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
3 2 1 45 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 22 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
3 2 1 10 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom