Walker cleared to play.

SeaEagleRock8 said:
This is what grates. Greenberg's actions are not motivated by concern for victims of rape or domestic violence. They are about bowing to the media backers of NRL who don't want bad publicity to affect ratings for their game show.

The NRL must have a code of conduct, that is reasonable. My job has one.

If there is a line drawn about automatic stand-downs for serious charges, I'll accept that [although the '11 years' appears totally arbitrary, I can't think of any offence with a maximum penalty of 11 years. Probably a simpler criterion would simply be to say any strictly indictable charge, which is any charge too serious for Local court)

The unacceptable part is Greenberg being handed total power to make inconsistent decisions about players facing less serious charges. Greenberg? The bloke who selectively gives character references in court to certain favoured players?? What on earth is the point of having an 'Integrity Unit' if they aren't allowed to make decisions about things like that.

As for Walker's case - he is part way through defending a case. Yes the allegation is serious enough for him to be deregistered and sacked if guilty, I don't cavil with that. But even the prosecution's own witness has testified under oath that he didn't do it. So far nothing is proved in relation to Walker's case (despite the claims from some of our posters to the contrary). At the end of the case the magistrate will make a finding about what actually occurred - but no findings at all have been made so far. If this is not an example of a case that should be left to run its course in local court then I don't know what is.

Yet another example of knee-jerk policy change on the run without thinking through the consequences.
Click to expand...
I really hate the policy on the run mentality of Greenturd and the NRL. I would have liked to have seen a process where the clubs are given strict guidelines about the action they need to take over a player.

As we learned with the Brett Stewart case, you have to be careful when it comes to suspending someone in a knee jerk reaction and then putting a person through hell where he is vilified and then when cleared not an ounce of an apology.

I think the people most excited about this rushed change will be the legal fraternity because I see law suits on mass coming and Greenturd has to be accountable for this!!
 
HappilyManly said:
The 11+ year minimum sentence guideline is due to the crime of Affray being a 10 year max sentence.
Click to expand...
Clearly that was the thinking, but it just sounds kind of goofy. The obvious way to frame such a cut-off is 'charged with an offence carrying more than 10 years'.

Plus personally I find it a poor way to draw the line. Parliament has already set out a clear delineation of seriousness of offences by specifying that some are fine to handle in local court. Why reinvent the wheel? (apologies to @The Wheel ) There are plenty of offences that carry more than 11 years that can still be dealt with in local court if the DPP deems them not terribly serious examples of that charge.

The serious matters that are prosecuted on indictment are the ones that will take up to 18 months or so to finalise, especially on a plea of not guilty.

(and by the way, the DPP can elect to take Affray up to the District Court if they deem it a serious case).
 
sheridanstand78 said:
I really hate the policy on the run mentality of Greenturd and the NRL. I would have liked to have seen a process where the clubs are given strict guidelines about the action they need to take over a player.

As we learned with the Brett Stewart case, you have to be careful when it comes to suspending someone in a knee jerk reaction and then putting a person through hell where he is vilified and then when cleared not an ounce of an apology.

I think the people most excited about this rushed change will be the legal fraternity because I see law suits on mass coming and Greenturd has to be accountable for this!!
Click to expand...

They must have been overjoyed when some marketing guru came up with the phrase "No fault - stand down" policy.

- Hey we can just say we're not making a judgement call on his guilt or innocence, that's up to the courts...but we've decided to not allow him to play.. like err, so it's kinda a judgement, but umm look, in the title it says no fault, and like if we call it that then we can do what we want and we're sure there can be no legal ramifications. But let's hope players don't call rape "surprise sex" because then we can't do anything.



Maybe the ceo will step in front of a fluffy cuddle pillow of soft-soft; which is what I hear cement trucks are now called.
 
SeaEagleRock8 said:
Clearly that was the thinking, but it just sounds kind of goofy. The obvious way to frame such a cut-off is 'charged with an offence carrying more than 10 years'.

Plus personally I find it a poor way to draw the line. Parliament has already set out a clear delineation of seriousness of offences by specifying that some are fine to handle in local court. Why reinvent the wheel? (apologies to @The Wheel ) There are plenty of offences that carry more than 11 years that can still be dealt with in local court if the DPP deems them not terribly serious examples of that charge.

The serious matters that are prosecuted on indictment are the ones that will take up to 18 months or so to finalise, especially on a plea of not guilty.

(and by the way, the DPP can elect to take Affray up to the District Court if they deem it a serious case).
Click to expand...
Greenturd probably googled NSW sentencing guidelines and realized that his business has hired too many aggressive types :giggle:

Then again, it is the role of the ARLC to set policy and for Greenturd to then apply it.
 
globaleagle said:
They must have been overjoyed when some marketing guru came up with the phrase "No fault - stand down" policy.

- Hey we can just say we're not making a judgement call on his guilt or innocence, that's up to the courts...but we've decided to not allow him to play.. like err, so it's kinda a judgement, but umm look, in the title it says no fault, and like if we call it that then we can do what we want and we're sure there can be no legal ramifications. But let's hope players don't call rape "surprise sex" because then we can't do anything.



Maybe the ceo will step in front of a fluffy cuddle pillow of soft-soft; which is what I hear cement trucks are now called.
Click to expand...
The 'no fault..' apparently was conceived along the 'on remand' guidelines.

Whilst awaiting a hearing about 20% of people are kept in jail at the Judge's discretion. Whilst their claim of innocence is still upheld during this incarceration.

But the NRL should not have extended their reach into legal areas IMO.

Their need to control every facet of their players and officials is causing Fans to abandon the game 😎
 
HappilyManly said:
The 'no fault..' apparently was conceived along the 'on remand' guidelines.

Whilst awaiting a hearing about 20% of people are kept in jail at the Judge's discretion. Whilst their claim of innocence is still upheld during this incarceration.

But the NRL should not have extended their reach into legal areas IMO.

Their need to control every facet of their players and officials is causing Fans to abandon the game 😎
Click to expand...
Unfortunately Greenburg is a protected specie at NRL head quarters .
The only way to get rid of him is to expose him in one of his sex tapes .
 
HappilyManly said:
The 'no fault..' apparently was conceived along the 'on remand' guidelines.

Whilst awaiting a hearing about 20% of people are kept in jail at the Judge's discretion. Whilst their claim of innocence is still upheld during this incarceration.

But the NRL should not have extended their reach into legal areas IMO.

Their need to control every facet of their players and officials is causing Fans to abandon the game 😎
Click to expand...
Unfortunately Greenburg is a protected specie at NRL head quarters .
The only way to get rid of him is to expose him in one of his sex tapes .
 
HappilyManly said:
The 'no fault..' apparently was conceived along the 'on remand' guidelines.

Whilst awaiting a hearing about 20% of people are kept in jail at the Judge's discretion. Whilst their claim of innocence is still upheld during this incarceration.

But the NRL should not have extended their reach into legal areas IMO.

Their need to control every facet of their players and officials is causing Fans to abandon the game 😎
Click to expand...
They have become a George Orwellian like beast in their pursuit of power and control.
 
I wonder if someone has composed a list of the various rugby league atrocities especially since the beginning on Greenburg s corrupt tenour
It would be interesting to see the player, the charge ,the conviction if any ,the punishment or non action by the NRL/ Greenk@&t ,the team involved,Greenturd s comment
I’m sure there is a ST member who has the resources and patience to put it together
We know the list it will be inconsistent but will it be fair and will there be an an oblivious trend of corruption ? I think we know the answers but It would be good to see it in black and white .Then maybe we could send it to the “journalists “ to see if they have the moral fortitude to follow it thru
I still blame DW for this mess but Greenberg is making it worse for us and smirking while he does it and that I can’t stomach
Go Manly
 
I’m no legal expert but I can’t help thinking on a legal sense the standing down of these two players BEFORE found guilty has to contravene Australian law!!

Perhaps @SeaEagleRock8 can help me out here.

And if so surely at least JDB will Mount a case against it??
 
yokahontas said:
Yeah...that vomit button please...
Click to expand...
In Saudi Arabia they have a no free speech button as well .
download (4).jpg
 
HappilyManly said:
Whilst awaiting a hearing about 20% of people are kept in jail at the Judge's discretion.
Click to expand...
Except refusing bail is not a matter of discretion. As a matter of law it can only happen when certain matters are established.
You might be getting this confused with Greenberg's absolute discretion to decide whatever the hell he thinks is best.
 
Mark from Brisbane said:
I’m no legal expert but I can’t help thinking on a legal sense the standing down of these two players BEFORE found guilty has to contravene Australian law!!

Perhaps @SeaEagleRock8 can help me out here.

And if so surely at least JDB will Mount a case against it??
Click to expand...
Sorry Mark can't help with that one. I did raise here a few weeks back my thought that it was a matter the RLPA would weigh in on. It seems not, yet but maybe next week. @;) (more for Walker's case than DeBellin's)
 
SeaEagleRock8 said:
Except refusing bail is not a matter of discretion. As a matter of law it can only happen when certain matters are established.
You might be getting this confused with Greenberg's absolute discretion to decide whatever the hell he thinks is best.
Click to expand...
NRL's application of this is spurious.😕

My point was that remand is locking up a person who is yet to be tried

The Nappa penalty has zero basis for instance.

People may now release old sex tapes to affect a Team's finals chances knowing that Greenturd will punish the player.

Nappa was not the one who made them public after all 😎
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Members online

Total: 303 (members: 6, guests: 297)

Latest posts

Team P W L PD Pts
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0

Online statistics

Members online
6
Guests online
297
Total visitors
303
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Latest posts

Newest members

Stay Connected

Back
Top Bottom