Brandon Smith

[Fangs]

I mean no one should really care about recreational drugs any more than they do alcohol in 2025.

Alcohol gets a free pass because its legal but its doing enormous damage to society. Just look at LU posters.

 

[yobbo84]

I mean no one should really care about recreational drugs any more than they do alcohol in 2025.

I've never known of anyone who has died from one drink on a night out. F**k drugs.

 

[Bazal]

I've never known of anyone who has died from one drink on a night out. F**k drugs.

Sure. Valid. I do, albeit not personally for that one.

I've known people when have died horribly and slowly from durries and booze. It's not a discussion for here really but let's stop pretending they're all any better or worse than each other.

 

[Vlad59]

Sure. Valid. I do, albeit not personally for that one.

I've known people when have died horribly and slowly from durries and booze. It's not a discussion for here really but let's stop pretending they're all any better or worse than each other.

I’d suggest hard drugs or worse than booze but it’s a matter of inches.

 

[Bazal]

I’d suggest hard drugs or worse than booze but it’s a matter of inches.

Also valid, although I'd also suggest heroin is not a recreational drug.

 

[Vlad59]

Also valid, although I'd also suggest heroin is not a recreational drug.

Meth? I know some who think so. I don’t. I’ve seen it too close up.

 

[butchmcdick]

 

[Chimp]

I’ve never seen anybody so completely ignorant of how legal proceedings or due process work as you. No one agrees with you mate. Have you worked out why yet?

I agree with him in principle. The Police took Smiths phone, they’ve obviously seen enough evidence on there that Smith attempted to get drugs from a a dealer to Radley (hence Smith copping a supply charge). If the evidence is strong enough to charge Smith on that basis, how is it not strong enough to charge Radley - it’s certainly strong enough to name Radley publicly as the recipient of Smtihs ‘supply’.
The only reasons Radley won’t have been charged are that the crime of buying drugs is too low level for them to waste their resources on, and there’s not leveraging Radley for the main target (the actual dealer), because Radley has clearly gone through Smith to get the gear, so Radley won’t have any info on the actual dealer.
I should add, it’s all alleged at the moment anyway, so no proof of guilt anywhere. But the Police have clearly seen evidence that Radley and Smith have been in contact arranging a drop.

 

[Vlad59]

I agree with him in principle. The Police took Smiths phone, they’ve obviously seen enough evidence on there that Smith attempted to get drugs from a a dealer to Radley (hence Smith copping a supply charge). If the evidence is strong enough to charge Smith on that basis, how is it not strong enough to charge Radley - it’s certainly strong enough to name Radley publicly as the recipient of Smtihs ‘supply’.
The only reasons Radley won’t have been charged are that the crime of buying drugs is too low level for them to waste their resources on, and there’s not leveraging Radley for the main target (the actual dealer), because Radley has clearly gone through Smith to get the gear, so Radley won’t have any info on the actual dealer.
I should add, it’s all alleged at the moment anyway, so no proof of guilt anywhere. But the Police have clearly seen evidence that Radley and Smith have been in contact arranging a drop.

I’m not even going to bother trying to tell you why you are wrong. Some of you just have no understanding of how legal processes work. If you and numbnuts are right, the legal process has been incorrectly applied for centuries. Good luck with that.

 

[Saxon]

I agree with him in principle. The Police took Smiths phone, they’ve obviously seen enough evidence on there that Smith attempted to get drugs from a a dealer to Radley (hence Smith copping a supply charge). If the evidence is strong enough to charge Smith on that basis, how is it not strong enough to charge Radley - it’s certainly strong enough to name Radley publicly as the recipient of Smtihs ‘supply’.
The only reasons Radley won’t have been charged are that the crime of buying drugs is too low level for them to waste their resources on, and there’s not leveraging Radley for the main target (the actual dealer), because Radley has clearly gone through Smith to get the gear, so Radley won’t have any info on the actual dealer.
I should add, it’s all alleged at the moment anyway, so no proof of guilt anywhere. But the Police have clearly seen evidence that Radley and Smith have been in contact arranging a drop.

The more likely reason is that the intended final recipient never engaged in an offer of payment. Then there's not anything significant you can charge them with. Supply, on the other hand, doesn't require payment.
Conversation goes something like;
Player 1 to Player 2: I want some drugs, can you help a mate out.
P2 to P1: Sure, I know a guy. I'll fix you up.
P2 to Dealer: My mate P2 needs some gear. Can you sort him out? Put it on my tab.
S to P2. Sure.

P1 has now agreed to supply to P2.

 

[Vlad59]

The more likely reason is that the intended final recipient never engaged in an offer of payment. Then there's not anything significant you can charge them with. Supply, on the other hand, doesn't require payment.
Conversation goes something like;
Player 1 to Player 2: I want some drugs, can you help a mate out.
P2 to P1: Sure, I know a guy. I'll fix you up.
P2 to Dealer: My mate P2 needs some gear. Can you sort him out? Put it on my tab.
S to P2. Sure.

P1 has now agreed to supply to P2.

I couldn’t be bothered going to the trouble explaining this. Respect!

 

[Chimp]

The more likely reason is that the intended final recipient never engaged in an offer of payment. Then there's not anything significant you can charge them with. Supply, on the other hand, doesn't require payment.
Conversation goes something like;
Player 1 to Player 2: I want some drugs, can you help a mate out.
P2 to P1: Sure, I know a guy. I'll fix you up.
P2 to Dealer: My mate P2 needs some gear. Can you sort him out? Put it on my tab.
S to P2. Sure.

P1 has now agreed to supply to P2.

That is exactly how I would suspect this might have gone. Not sure why Vlad is getting his knickers in a twist.

 

[Vlad59]

That is exactly how I would suspect this might have gone. Not sure why Vlad is getting his knickers in a twist.

That’s not what you wrote mate.

 

[sheepbender]

I know am a couple days late to the party.. but having been in and around RL for most of life, does anyone actually give a f**k about this..? Like actually..? Footy and a good time off the field go hand in hand.
I know theres some legality to it, but I actually couldnt give a flying what the Cheese has done, Im not even surprised.. footy players being footy players.

 

[Chimp]

I know am a couple days late to the party.. but having been in and around RL for most of life, does anyone actually give a f**k about this..? Like actually..? Footy and a good time off the field go hand in hand.
I know theres some legality to it, but I actually couldnt give a flying what the Cheese has done, Im not even surprised.. footy players being footy players.

Agree 100%.

I guess the principle is though, from the Drig’s perspective, if Smith is in the shit, Radley could also be in the shit, both legally and from an NRL perspective. The only difference really is Smith is probably in deeper shit with the law rather than NRL, Radley is way too low scale for a legal issue, but in deeper shit with the NRL/Roosters.

Either way, nothing really to see here, play on….

 

[Brutus]

As long as Radley is available for the Poms in the Ashes series, I don't care.

 

[Twizzle]

Alcohol gets a free pass because its legal but its doing enormous damage to society. Just look at LU posters.

excellent point there

 

[Manurewa_Marlins]

As long as Radley is available for the Poms in the Ashes series, I don't care.

They can't seize his British passport, or can they??!!

 

[Tiger5150]

I know am a couple days late to the party.. but having been in and around RL for most of life, does anyone actually give a f**k about this..? Like actually..? Footy and a good time off the field go hand in hand.
I know theres some legality to it, but I actually couldnt give a flying what the Cheese has done, Im not even surprised.. footy players being footy players.

I kind of agree that the NRL shouldnt care too much about nose beers, unless the "stimulant" effect would be considered performance enhancing.

But I dont know why the clubs dont have a much stronger view on it. It is the club flogging a player through intense physical strenuous activity on an almost daily basis and I would think there are some serious negative outcomes that could be associated with significant consumption. This is without even considering the overall impact on health.

 

[Valheru]

I know am a couple days late to the party.. but having been in and around RL for most of life, does anyone actually give a f**k about this..? Like actually..? Footy and a good time off the field go hand in hand.
I know theres some legality to it, but I actually couldnt give a flying what the Cheese has done, Im not even surprised.. footy players being footy players.

You've got to remember that there is a large "won't someone think of the children" crowd within the NRL fandom that for some reason believes the NRL should be moral adjudicators in life. The NRL themselves seem to also believe this.