Disgraceful Shameful NRL Signing

[skeepe]

Irrelevant if you are or aren't alone. Anyone who is would be sued by Inglis if their opinion actually mattered. And you do realise the allegation was only ever about an open hand push? And the allegations were dropped, Inglis has a clean criminal record because he is a good guy who has never put a foot wrong.

Except assaulting his missus, which he admitted and was given a diversion order for.

The alleged "victim" then went and married him and moved to two different states to be with him when she could have sued him and made a lot of money out of him...if the original story was true (which it wasn't).

The only thing that isn't true here is your version of events.

Inglis is not in the same category as Bird. Bird is a thug, Inglis isn't.

Yet one was found not guilty, the other admitted to the charge. I'll give you a hint: Bird was the one found not guilty.

And both of them aren't even close to the same category as Metcalf. What Inglis did was a non issue, what Bird did was bad, what Metcalf did is disgusting and disgraceful.

All true. And all have been sentenced for their crimes (or not, in Bird's case) and have carried out those sentences.

 

[BunniesMan]

yes.. because marrying someone and moving around with them from location to location is a sure-fire pointer that there is never any trouble...

Lmao comparing Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown to Sally and Greg Inglis...that's beyond ridiculous.

 

[skeepe]

That's terrible journalism. Assault is a legal term, the assault charges were dropped. He admitted to pushing her (not punching or striking as was in the papers for a long time). He didn't actually admit to assault like the headline says.

It's like someone admitting "I admit I was in a car accident today" and the headline says "He admitted to driving recklessly and over the speed limit". Big difference between what was actually admitted and the attention grabbing headline (which is what headlines are designed to do).

So YOU get YOUR facts straight before coming in here and carrying on like a tool.

From the link:

an unlawful assault charge, which will be dealt with through a diversion program.

The charge was unlawful assault. Given that, it is entirely accurate for the journalist to write "admitted to assault", as unlawful assault was the very name of the charge.

Idiot.

 

[BunniesMan]

Except assaulting his missus, which he admitted and was given a diversion order for.

fmd it's painful talking to people who are severely less intelligent than you. He did not admit to assaulting her. Assault is by definition a crime. He did not commit a crime. He admitted to one very specific action. Pushing her. Nothing more. Like my example earlier, being in a car accident doesn't necessarily mean you did anything wrong.

 

[skeepe]

fmd it's painful talking to people who are severely less intelligent than you. He did not admit to assaulting her. He admitting to one very specific action. Pushing her. Nothing more.

See my above post. Troll.

 

[muzby]

That's terrible journalism. Assault is a legal term, the assault charges were dropped. He admitted to pushing her (not punching or striking as was in the papers for a long time). He didn't actually admit to assault like the headline says.

It's like someone admitting "I admit I was in a car accident today" and the headline says "He admitted to driving recklessly and over the speed limit". Big difference between what was actually admitted and the attention grabbing headline (which is what headlines are designed to do).

So YOU get YOUR facts straight before coming in here and carrying on like a tool.

haha okay, so a bloke pushing a girl's face so hard that he gives her a black eye isn't assault.. you'll make a great cop, BM..

it doens't matter what method of strking is used, be it open hand or not, if it causes physical damage, it's assault.


btw, if that was such "Bad journalism" and "misrepresenation of the facts" then surely (as you put it):

Anyone who is would be sued by Inglis if their opinion actually mattered.

waiting for that court case then..... surely a paper with a readership of over 1m people would be classed as having an opinion that matters..

 

[muzby]

Lmao comparing Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown to Sally and Greg Inglis...that's beyond ridiculous.

wow. you serious about that being houston & brown??

you either really are a troll, or just plain stupid...


either way, let me guess you'll try and back out of it by saying that you were kidding, and then yell & abuse anyone who says you weren't...

 

[East Coast Tiger]

Did you check the date that article was written....2004. Of course she felt that way just after it happened....idiot.

Yes I did f**kwit.

What difference does it make? He's a criminal. Always will be. You just want to do what everyone else is suggesting and ignore and forget about the victim and allow the perpetrator a glorious career in a highly paid and high profile job. Lots of people are saying "let him get on with his life", well it must be pretty easy for him to do that when he's free to walk the streets and strolls into his dream job. What about the victim?

You're probably just another one of these cretins who deep down don't have a problem with what he did - it's no big deal I suppose. And that's the crux of it. The disrespect of women that clearly exists among some players also exists against some blokes on here. Little wonder the game has such a disgusting reputation. If the NRL thinks it will attract women to the game by allowing people like this to play it's kidding itself. It's bad enough we have such dispicable fans, but we can't do much about them, alas.

 

[Noa]

Lmao comparing Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown to Sally and Greg Inglis...that's beyond ridiculous.

Lmao comparing Ike & Tina Turner to Whitney Houston and Bobby Brown...that's beyond ridiculous.

 

[kmav23]

If this guy is allowed to play then you might as well open the floodgates to all criminals who have served their prison sentances....

pedo's
murderers
bank robbers
rapist
ex cronulla players

 

[East Coast Tiger]

I'm disgusted.
To those people bagging others for taking 'moral highground' or whatever you want to call it....moral highground? How about actually being a decent human being.
Yes I'm saying it, he shouldn't be in the NRL.....do you blokes just shut off the thoughts of what he did to this poor girl?
What the f**k is wrong with people.

Precisely. It's pretty sad really. Makes you wonder what these people get up to in their own lives. Unforunately the kind of immorality that makes a 15 year old kid think he can behave like he did is still alive and well in society, as evidenced here.

 

[BunniesMan]

From the link:



The charge was unlawful assault. Given that, it is entirely accurate for the journalist to write "admitted to assault", as unlawful assault was the very name of the charge.

Idiot.

He didn't plead guilty to that ffs. This is my last post on the issue because I'm talking to complete geniuss.

The charges are adjourned while the Diversion Plan is undertaken. If the conditions are successfully completed, the charges are discharged with no finding of guilt

http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov...trates+Court/Home/Criminal+Diversion+Program/

He wasn't found guilty for unlawful assault. He did not commit assault. You simply cannot use the word assault when it's NOT f**kING ASSAULT. A diversion program when completed means YOU'RE NOT FOUND GUILTY. I can't stress this in any clearer way. He did not commit assault. Assault is a specific legal term. You have to be found guilty of assault. He was not found guilty of assault.

 

[butchmcdick]

I wonder the same thing with the people in this thread who can't understand the very simple facts:

-Committed a horrible crime
-Did his time
-Seems to have turned his life around
-Has been accepted by people (campaigners, management, players, club) a hell of a lot more in the know than any of us
-WILL be allowed to play in the NRL if selected
-If any of you feel this is wrong, you are entitled to your right to protest; go write an e-mail to Warriors management or the NRL

...and believe me, it's a minority who want him banned from playing.

With respect I don't think it is a minority that are ok with him playing NRL.

 

[Shorty]

Read Fibroman's post above, it was aimed at people ignorant like you Shorty.

How am I ignorant, I don't think I'm ignorant at all, in fact, I see many posts like mine.
Either way, anyone that is actually supporting this happening makes me sick.

 

[BunniesMan]

Back on topic, the newspapers do a online poll on every other little thing. Wish they had a poll running on the Metcalf issue. I can't see more than 15-20% supporting him coming back.

 

[Flapper]

There's no way in hell it's only a minority unhappy with this guy playing NRL.

 

[DJShaksta]

Watching Bunniesman self-destruct while trying to defend his gay love infatuation is priceless.

 

[Te Kaha]

He didn't plead guilty to that ffs. This is my last post on the issue because I'm talking to complete geniuss.


http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov...trates+Court/Home/Criminal+Diversion+Program/

He wasn't found guilty for unlawful assault. He did not commit assault. You simply cannot use the word assault when it's NOT f**kING ASSAULT. A diversion program when completed means YOU'RE NOT FOUND GUILTY. I can't stress this in any clearer way. He did not commit assault. Assault is a specific legal term. You have to be found guilty of assault. He was not found guilty of assault.

Thats not entirely true... from that same link, in order to be eligble for diversion "the accused acknowledges responsibility for the offence." Therefore he has admited he commited assault.

 

[muzby]

He didn't plead guilty to that ffs. This is my last post on the issue because I'm talking to complete geniuss.


http://www.magistratescourt.vic.gov...trates+Court/Home/Criminal+Diversion+Program/

He wasn't found guilty for unlawful assault. He did not commit assault. You simply cannot use the word assault when it's NOT f**kING ASSAULT. A diversion program when completed means YOU'RE NOT FOUND GUILTY. I can't stress this in any clearer way. He did not commit assault. Assault is a specific legal term. You have to be found guilty of assault. He was not found guilty of assault.

so... based on your logic..

i can go ahead and steal your TV, but provided i can beat any charges, i am not a thief and did not take anything of yours, even though i have your tv sitting at my house?

 

[BunniesMan]

Thats not entirely true... from that same link, in order to be eligble for diversion "the accused acknowledges responsibility for the offence." Therefore he has admited he commited assault.

It might sound like splitting hairs for the layman, but acknowledging responsiblity for something is entirely different to actually pleading guilty in court.

My theory on this specific case is the prosecutors knew they had nothing (even their alleged "victim" wasn't agreeing with their version of events) and the diversion program was the compromise because even if he knew he'd be found innocent eventually I doubt Inglis (and Sally) wanted this dragging on like Brett Stewart's did. The reality is even if you're found innocent in the end, having a case in the headlines for a year or more can still hurt reputations.

The diversion program was a way for the prosecutor to look like he had something when he didn't. And a way for Inglis to admit responsibility without admitting guilt.