Walker cleared to play.

[Bearfax]

Elite athletes have the rare opportunity and privilege of playing a sport they love in front of the multitudes and in the modern game they can be handsomely paid if good enough. Everyone knows the potential for exposure by public media because everybody is carrying a camera / movie camera in their hands (phones). If you want to play in the show and earn big bucks you have to maintain a high level of beahaviour and conduct. If you can’t or won’t behave appropriately then you don’t fit and don’t deserve the job. No more dickheads.

Oh that we were all common sense, logical beings. Unfortunately we have to accept instead that we are human.

 

[madmax]

So as far as I can see, the following has happened:-

Jack De Bellin (Dragons) > aggravated sexual assault, stood down
Dylan Walker (Sea Eagles) > common assault, stood down
Dylan Napa (Bulldogs) > lewd videos, fined
Scott Bolton (Cowboys) > indecent assault, minor punishment
Jaemon Salmon (Eels) > stood down for 1 game plus a fine
Ben Barba (Cowboys) > sacked
Myles Taueli (Broncos) > sacked
Payne Haas (Broncos) > refusing to comply with investigation, stood down plus fine
Tautau Moga (Knights) > common assault, no further news.
Michael Chee Kam (Tigers) > common assault, no further news
Zane Musgrove (Tigers) > indecent assault, no further news.
Liam Coleman (Panthers) > indecent assault, no further news
Greg Inglis (Rabbitohs) > speeding / drink driving, jack $hit
Tyrone May (Panthers) > ??????
What's going with the guys hi lighted????

 

[brad]

I

He’s still contracted for now, so it’s not really surprising. The club extending counselling to Walker and his partner is the same as any other player could expect from their club under similar circumstances, regardless of future plans. It’s a pretty standard part of what they see as their duty of care these days.

I understand that it happens like this but I think the longer he is around the joint Hasler may keep him . Just my thought.

 

[Sue]

Bear, if human is chasing your Mrs and baby around the front yard over a f....ing video game or filming a woman and sending it to all your mates without her permission. I’ll give that strain of humanity a miss thanks.

It’s pretty simple. If you f...ck up you should cop it and get suspended; if you keep doing it you are a fool and you lose the privileged position you have. It ain’t hard. If you do these things in most private sector work places you’ll get punted real quick , why should it be different for them.Time these clowns learnt a lesson.Leave the criminal stuff for the courts to sort out and suspend them for being grubs for a time commensurate with their antics.
It a crazy thing called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

 

[maxta]

If there's no crackdown, there will be consistency as to "That player done this and got off, yet this bloke only done this and is suspended"....always comparing situations - ect.....
The line in the sand keeps it simple -
your on great money
you have kids looking up to you who WILL follow their idols antics (for right or wrong)
you representing your club who pay your wage at all times.
The modern day media and general public phones/video can be on YOU at ANY moment

Personally I'm a bit of an old school character, who enjoys a party and always mind my own business, but the reality is, so much of the general public live their lives through a phone and whatever they look at - share with the world which is a sad fact...but a fact all he same.
I find this an invasion of privacy and have an attitude of "mind your business and get a f**ken life".....but I'm not dumb enough, to not realise this is the way of the world today.
How players can see others before them cop a media barrage and get cut from the game and yet still put themselves in the situation is hard to fathom.
This is coming from a bloke who does not get involved in other peoples business, unless someone is harming someone/something else.
These video and claims will continue with certain individuals now seeing a way to make money off the players success and will drag them through the mud to do so.....the players need to keep in mind its not just destroying their personal public standing and destroying a career, but effects fans, club and sponsors and most importantly by a long shot - Massive impact on their family.

 

[Bearfax]

Bear, if human is chasing your Mrs and baby around the front yard over a f....ing video game or filming a woman and sending it to all your mates without her permission. I’ll give that strain of humanity a miss thanks.

It’s pretty simple. If you f...ck up you should cop it and get suspended; if you keep doing it you are a fool and you lose the privileged position you have. It ain’t hard. If you do these things in most private sector work places you’ll get punted real quick , why should it be different for them.Time these clowns learnt a lesson.Leave the criminal stuff for the courts to sort out and suspend them for being grubs for a time commensurate with their antics.
It a crazy thing called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY

Not disputing your statement Sue. All I am trying to get across is there is due process of law, and without it there is vigilantism which has far less chance of accuracy. I am also saying that the punishment should be directed at the offender alone as much as possible, otherwise you are penalising the victim and others as well. I come from a legal profession, and what I have observed is the court system we have has flaws but is vastly better than any alternative means of determining guilt.

 

[HappilyManly]

So as far as I can see, the following has happened:-

Jack De Bellin (Dragons) > aggravated sexual assault, stood down
Dylan Walker (Sea Eagles) > common assault, stood down
Dylan Napa (Bulldogs) > lewd videos, fined
Scott Bolton (Cowboys) > indecent assault, minor punishment
Jaemon Salmon (Eels) > stood down for 1 game plus a fine
Ben Barba (Cowboys) > sacked
Myles Taueli (Broncos) > sacked
Payne Haas (Broncos) > refusing to comply with investigation, stood down plus fine
Tautau Moga (Knights) > common assault, no further news.
Michael Chee Kam (Tigers) > common assault, no further news
Zane Musgrove (Tigers) > indecent assault, no further news.
Liam Coleman (Panthers) > indecent assault, no further news
Greg Inglis (Rabbitohs) > speeding / drink driving, jack $hit
Tyrone May (Panthers) > ??????
What's going with the guys hi lighted????

https://www.google.com/amp/s/couple...s/news-story/da695c0f881adecfe427490dd9bcbad8

Zane is unregistered and Liam is under the NSWRL jurisdiction

 

[yokahontas]

Not disputing your statement Sue. All I am trying to get across is there is due process of law, and without it there is vigilantism which has far less chance of accuracy. I am also saying that the punishment should be directed at the offender alone as much as possible, otherwise you are penalising the victim and others as well. I come from a legal profession, and what I have observed is the court system we have has flaws but is vastly better than any alternative means of determining guilt.

@Bearfax while it’s a noble sentiment that the punishment should be directed at the offender alone (and I do realise you qualified that by saying ‘as much as possible’), the ‘collateral damage’ is realistically not something we can (or should) take into account when determining punishment for anything.

I keep coming back to, say, a truckie who gets done for drink driving, where loss of licence means loss of job - you have Offender A, who is single, lives at home with parents, has no real financial responsibilities - vs Offender B, married, half a dozen kids to support, mortgage to pay. Let’s say, for argument’s sake, both blow the exact same reading on the way home from the pub. Virtually identical driving records, and both work for the same company. Should B get a lesser punishment than A because the consequences of his actions are going to adversely affect people other than himself? Heart might say yes, head most definitely says no.

Playing a sport for a living is way more of a privilege than holding a drivers licence is. And the bottom line is, the responsibility for the collateral damage to family etc lies wholly and solely with the offender, not with the courts, not with the governing body, not with the fans. Walker shouldn’t be treated with kid gloves because his actions involved a young family, any more than a guy who smacks around a ‘friend with benefits’ he’s known for two weeks; de Belin shouldn’t be treated any differently by the courts than his younger co-offender (except if it’s determined there’s differing culpability) just because he has a pregnant fiancé and Sinclair doesn’t (as far as I know - his support people in his recent court appearance were his parents). Ben Barba’s kids are currently adjusting to a significantly different lifestyle than what they’ve been used to, but that’s entirely on him, nobody else.

 

[Bearfax]

Sue you seem to be missing the point here. All I am saying is that it is not ours or the League's right to prejudge a case. Let the court decide the question of guilt. The example with the truckie is generally indisputable because of firm evidence (blood/breath testing) and the loss of licence is determined by the court, not his employers. We don't know what happened at Walkers home, and what the full extent was . That's for the court to determine. I'm not trying to soften the issue, I'm trying to have us recognise we have no right to judge before the court makes its decision. If Walker is guilty, the court will determine punishment. Any other punishment that the NRL choose to place on Walker, should take into consideration the impact on the victim. Its the victim who has suffered, not we in the public, so it should be essential that she doesn't suffer unduly before we worry about what the community decides what should happen to him.

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Sue you seem to be missing the point here. All I am saying is that it is not ours or the League's right to prejudge a case. Let the court decide the question of guilt. The example with the truckie is generally indisputable because of firm evidence (blood/breath testing) and the loss of licence is determined by the court, not his employers. We don't know what happened at Walkers home, and what the full extent was . That's for the court to determine. I'm not trying to soften the issue, I'm trying to have us recognise we have no right to judge before the court makes its decision. If Walker is guilty, the court will determine punishment. Any other punishment that the NRL choose to place on Walker, should take into consideration the impact on the victim. Its the victim who has suffered, not we in the public, so it should be essential that she doesn't suffer unduly before we worry about what the community decides what should happen to him.

I think there are two parts to this and it seems, with your legal background, you seem focused on only one. Everything you have said about the legal aspect (not drawing conclusions until the case is finalized and ensuring that further harm to the victim is minimized) is fair.
The other part of the equation is the business aspect. Like it or not we live in a world where news spread quickly and public opinions are cast even faster. Add to that, the fact that the NRL and Manly are in fierce completion against other codes and clubs and hopefully you can understand that, through his actions, Walker has damaged both the NRL and Manly's brands.
That being said, he should not be penalized as a domestic violence offender unless he is convicted. But, if he isn't convicted he was still involved in behavior that damaged the brand and future of both Manly and the NRL and both have a right to take action to mitigate the initial damage and to act as a deterrent and reminder to others that this sort of behavior is unacceptable for their employees. If this punishment is deemed to severe then it could be contested in a court as all other workplace disputes are. And if it a case of slander against a player (like Stewart's case), rather than their own behavior then they should not be punished, but Walker is not in this position, conviction or not he has hurt our club through his actions.

 

[yokahontas]

I think there are two parts to this and it seems, with your legal background, you seem focused on only one. Everything you have said about the legal aspect (not drawing conclusions until the case is finalized and ensuring that further harm to the victim is minimized) is fair.
The other part of the equation is the business aspect. Like it or not we live in a world where news spread quickly and public opinions are cast even faster. Add to that, the fact that the NRL and Manly are in fierce completion against other codes and clubs and hopefully you can understand that, through his actions, Walker has damaged both the NRL and Manly's brands.
That being said, he should not be penalized as a domestic violence offender unless he is convicted. But, if he isn't convicted he was still involved in behavior that damaged the brand and future of both Manly and the NRL and both have a right to take action to mitigate the initial damage and to act as a deterrent and reminder to others that this sort of behavior is unacceptable for their employees. If this punishment is deemed to severe then it could be contested in a court as all other workplace disputes are. And if it a case of slander against a player (like Stewart's case), rather than their own behavior then they should not be punished, but Walker is not in this position, conviction or not he has hurt our club through his actions.

You make a good point about damage to the brand/image being something that has to be considered as well as any legal aspects. Say, in the example I used about truckies drink-driving - add in, maybe they took their pants off and did helicopters on the bar in company shirts, before getting chucked out of the pub and driving home. The employer has every right in that instance to punish the employees for the damage they’ve done to the company image, separate to any legal proceedings for the DUI charges. And again, both should be punished according to the offence, not B getting a slap on the wrist because his wife and kids will be collateral damage, while A gets summarily sacked because he’s got no dependants.

 

[Sue]

Not disputing your statement Sue. All I am trying to get across is there is due process of law, and without it there is vigilantism which has far less chance of accuracy. I am also saying that the punishment should be directed at the offender alone as much as possible, otherwise you are penalising the victim and others as well. I come from a legal profession, and what I have observed is the court system we have has flaws but is vastly better than any alternative means of determining guilt.

Bear I’m fine with the due process of law. NRL shouldn’t involve itself.
We all know in reality these blokes aren’t being suspended on the basis of is it or is it not a crime. Anyone who thinks that is plain crazy.They are being suspended for grub behaviour. And I’m fine with it if it is applied fairly on the basis of the facts NOT IN DISPUTE and by and independent panel.
They can deal with the crime bit later if guilty. If you apply your view unless a bloke is found guilty of a crime beyond reasonable doubt he can go on playing. That’s not how workplaces work. Do you reckon Bubbler boy would have been sacked if he pissed in his mouth at a workplace. You bet.

These are two separate issues . Criminal issues to be dealt with by the courts applying due process AND the continual degradation of the game due to poor behaviour in the workplace be it criminal or not- and this should be dealt with by the NRL. You don’t have to commit a crime to get sacked or suspended in a work place for God’s sake. Why should the NRL be different. Their problem is they stupidly connected the suspensions to the court process. For what reason only Turd knows.

Walker may or may not be guilty of a crime but he damn sure IS guilty of grub behaviour on the basis of the facts that are not in dispute.And as far as I can see the other dozen or so are too.Walker should have got 4 to 6 with reassessment after the verdict.

As for the effect on families etc that is totally irrelevant. Don’t do the crime , don’t do the time.Your family is your responsibility , not the NRL. Be responsible for your own actions. If we gave every criminal with a family a break they wouldn’t need prisons.

Time for this rubbish to stop.

 

[The Who]

Sorry, but the "facts" are in dispute with both Walker and de Belin. Both have pleaded Not Guilty and have yet to be given the chance to defend themselves in court.
The NRL is not the police force nor the DDP nor qualified to rule on the guilt of anybody unless it happened on a football field. That is the SOLE domain of the legal system.
Whatever you have heard about both cases is allegations, and scuttlebutt from the media.
In time much of what you've heard on the grapevine or read in the Telecrap may be proven to be true. But due process has yet to be given to Walker and de Belin. I'm not trying to defend either man; I'm sticking up for everybody who is the subject of allegations and is awaiting their time to defend them in court.

 

[mave]

Walker may or may not be guilty of a crime but he damn sure IS guilty of grub behaviour on the basis of the facts that are not in dispute.

Isnt he going to court and pleading not guilty, because the facts are in dispute ?

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Isnt he going to court and pleading not guilty, because the facts are in dispute ?

The charges are being disputed. Most of the facts, such as his partner falling to the ground and calling the police, cant be as there are police records. The argument is/will be around the cause of the events and that a misunderstanding has occured.

 

[mave]

The charges are being disputed. Most of the facts, such as his partner falling to the ground and calling the police, cant be as there are police records. The argument is/will be around the cause of the events and that a misunderstanding has occured.

Is it not a police record that the Mrs hair was pulled ?
That is now in dispute, yeah ?

 

[MuzztheEagle]

Is it not a police record that the Mrs hair was pulled ?
That is now in dispute, yeah ?

That wasnt in my last post. But the neighbour supported this claim and it as originally stated on either the triple 0 call or initial police interview.
The undisputed facts are this, Walker was involved in an incident that led to his partner falling to the ground, calling triple 0 and seeking refuge at a neighbours .

 

[Ranga]

Is it not a police record that the Mrs hair was pulled ?
That is now in dispute, yeah ?

From what I read of the reporting, i don’t think it is in dispute that hair was pulled, but rather whether he intended to pull hair. ie, the mens rea that must be proved for the charge to stick. Others with more knowledge of criminal law will be able to correct it necessary.

 

[qldeagle]

He's had his punishment for being a serial f/wit with a storm player giving him a fractured eye socket. He's probably decided to pick on the more vulnerable sex as a safer bet

 

[Bearfax]

I think there are two parts to this and it seems, with your legal background, you seem focused on only one. Everything you have said about the legal aspect (not drawing conclusions until the case is finalized and ensuring that further harm to the victim is minimized) is fair.
The other part of the equation is the business aspect. Like it or not we live in a world where news spread quickly and public opinions are cast even faster. Add to that, the fact that the NRL and Manly are in fierce completion against other codes and clubs and hopefully you can understand that, through his actions, Walker has damaged both the NRL and Manly's brands.
That being said, he should not be penalized as a domestic violence offender unless he is convicted. But, if he isn't convicted he was still involved in behavior that damaged the brand and future of both Manly and the NRL and both have a right to take action to mitigate the initial damage and to act as a deterrent and reminder to others that this sort of behavior is unacceptable for their employees. If this punishment is deemed to severe then it could be contested in a court as all other workplace disputes are. And if it a case of slander against a player (like Stewart's case), rather than their own behavior then they should not be punished, but Walker is not in this position, conviction or not he has hurt our club through his actions.

This from the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights under Article 14 (2)
'The presumption of innocence is a fundamental principle of the common law.

The UN Human Rights Committee has stated that the presumption of innocence imposes on the prosecution the burden of proving the charge and guarantees that no guilt can be presumed until the charge has been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Committee has also stated that public authorities should refrain from prejudging the outcome of a trial by making public statements affirming the guilt of the accused, and that the media should avoid news coverage undermining the presumption of innocence.'

Read into it what you will.