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. Â Unfortunately this appears to be a \"form letter\" type of response which failed to address the specific issues I raised. Â 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. Â Clearly, if innocence was presumed, as is the accepted standard in our Society and our courts of justice, no such action would be taken. Â Your actions have very serious implications in our system of justice where members of juries are selected from the community. Â Your actions have sent a very strong message to that community of potential jurers that you believe he is guilty. Â Whether or not this is your intent, this is the unambiguous outcome. Â 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. Â 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. Â 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. Â 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. Â 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. Â A criminal offence I understand. Â Friend did not dispute the allegations.
3. Â 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. Â 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. Â 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.