Dylan Brown Charged with Sexual Offence

[Frank Burge]

De Belin played all 3 games of origin in 2018 in a winning series. Should the NRL have been required to pay him SOO match payments while stood down?

Also, do you believe everyone accused of a crime should be entitled to a job, or does it just apply to NRL players?

I don’t think being charged would cost the average person their job as it wouldn’t be played out through the media, unless my employees lost their licenses I wouldn’t have a clue what they are doing outside of work.

 

[Maximus]

I don’t think being charged would cost the average person their job as it wouldn’t be played out through the media, unless my employees lost their licenses I wouldn’t have a clue what they are doing outside of work.

No answer to the actual question? Did you realise how dumb it would be to force all employers to continue to employee anyone charged with a crime?

 

[Frank Burge]

M

No answer to the actual question? Did you realise how dumb it would be to force all employers to continue to employee anyone charged with a crime

Are you illiterate? My first sentence literally said my point of view on the average person and the employers view on them being charged. I have 3 employees and unless I had a protest out the front or it was in the news I would t even know that they had been charged with anything.

 

[johns_reds]

Do they continue to be paid if the contract expires and are still stood down awaiting court date?
And nuffie or not, everyone has bills to pay and keep a roof over their families head, who is going to hire them when the media has dragged them through the mud calling them rapists and hiding behind the words alleged and charged.

Thats not the NRL's fault if their name was dragged through the mud.
The player can the sue the media if they wrongly reported the incident or any defamation of character
Or the player can potentially sue the person who made false charges against them for defamation of character
Look at the whole Legrmann / Higgins fiasco

 

[Bazal]

No answer to the actual question? Did you realise how dumb it would be to force all employers to continue to employee anyone charged with a crime?

It's quite a grey area... it's not always lawful to terminate someone just because they were charged with a crime

 

[Maximus]

It's quite a grey area... it's not always lawful to terminate someone just because they were charged with a crime

My question is more in regards to his argument that the NRL should be forced to continue paying a player whose contract expires, and wondering if this idea that a business should be forced to employ people also applies to other businesses.

It appears he is saying that business shouldn't be able to fire anyone charged with a crime because they have bills to pay and another business probably won't hire them.

 

[Frailty]

I don’t think being charged would cost the average person their job as it wouldn’t be played out through the media, unless my employees lost their licenses I wouldn’t have a clue what they are doing outside of work.

But NRL players are not the average person, are they? I mean they get paid extremely well for what they do and with that comes additional expectations, etc.

You can think that's unfair, but there are similar rules for other occupations as well. Do you think a police officer charged with sexual or violent offence gets to keep working whilst they have pending charges?

How about teacher's that are charged with any multitude of offences?

 

[Frank Burge]

But NRL players are not the average person, are they? I mean they get paid extremely well for what they do and with that comes additional expectations, etc.

You can think that's unfair, but there are similar rules for other occupations as well. Do you think a police officer charged with sexual or violent offence gets to keep working whilst they have pending charges?

How about teacher's that are charged with any multitude of offences?

But I’m sure they wouldn’t be sacked until the ruling is handed down, just stood down, my original post was in reference to when a player is nfsd while awaiting court and his contract expires, he now isn’t being paid and may be able to sue NRL for damages if he ends up being acquitted.

 

[Frank Burge]

My question is more in regards to his argument that the NRL should be forced to continue paying a player whose contract expires, and wondering if this idea that a business should be forced to employ people also applies to other businesses.

It appears he is saying that business shouldn't be able to fire anyone charged with a crime because they have bills to pay and another business probably won't hire them.

They have been charged , they aren’t guilty at that time.

 

[Frailty]

But I’m sure they wouldn’t be sacked until the ruling is handed down, just stood down, my original post was in reference to when a player is nfsd while awaiting court and his contract expires, he now isn’t being paid and may be able to sue NRL for damages if he ends up being acquitted.

You know teachers aren't necessarily employed on an ongoing basis and operate on contracts too, right?

 

[Pneuma]

They have been charged , they aren’t guilty at that time.

You don’t get it. You’ll never get it. You don’t want to get it.

 

[Pneuma]

You know teachers aren't necessarily employed on an ongoing basis and operate on contracts too, right?

Wasting your time I’m afraid.

 

[Bazal]

They have been charged , they aren’t guilty at that time.

Did you see my earlier answer?

Employers are entitled to stand down employees for reasons of conduct etc

 

[Exsilium]

Picture this scenario, you're a star footballer. Physically fit, making money and fall into the top 5% of earners.

Why would you feel the need to risk that when you'd probably have an abundance of safe choices and options?

 

[Frank Burge]

Y

You don’t get it. You’ll never get it. You don’t want to get it

Your right , I don’t want to understand how someone can make false accusations and ruin people’s career, marriage and family, that doesn’t sound like a just world to me.

 

[Frailty]

Y

Your right , I don’t want to understand how someone can make false accusations and ruin people’s career, marriage and family, that doesn’t sound like a just world to me.

Most research pins false accusations to be anywhere between 2-10% of cases, which is similar to any other criminal offence. A reasonable person looks at that and thinks we are looking at the extremely small amount of cases.

I asked this earlier in the thread, but what does the victim have to gain from this exactly? Why would you default to assume it's a false accusation?

 

[Bazal]

Most research pins false accusations to be anywhere between 2-10% of cases, which is similar to any other criminal offence. A reasonable person looks at that and thinks we are looking at the extremely small amount of cases.

I asked this earlier in the thread, but what does the victim have to gain from this exactly? Why would you default to assume it's a false accusation?

Not to appear to be taking sides here, but do you know if those stats are for all allegations?

10% is a lot tbh. Although obviously that's just one end of the scale. I'd be curious to see how the profile of the accused affects the stats. You'd reckon it's probably going to increase?

 

[Apey]

Picture this scenario, you're a star footballer. Physically fit, making money and fall into the top 5% of earners.

Why would you feel the need to risk that when you'd probably have an abundance of safe choices and options?

Egos. They can't fathom the idea that a member of the opposite sex might not want them. See: Hayne.

 

[Mojo]

I would like to see if the no fault stands up in court where players contract ends and he doesn’t get renewed because he isn’t allowed to play and ends up being found not guilty, but missed out on 2 years of earning potential. Thoughts?

If a contract ends, it ends. Full stop. You can't sue someone for not giving you a contract.

Anyone would have a very hard time trying to sue another party for not signing a new contract. ie; you can't sue another party for not doing something that is their free legal prerogative to choose not to do. Obviously, not signing a contract with a football player who is currently unable to play would make the option of suing the club even more untenable.

Re the 'no fault' stand down policy: obviously it doesn't mean that you've been stood down because you're not at fault. It means you're stood down without any implication of a pre-judgment of fault.

The police don't lay charges without good reason but charges aren't an implication of guilt either. Only the Courts judge guilt or innocence. Obviously you can't be charged with going to a pub - because it's not a criminal act; you can be charged with a range of sexual offences, whether you're in a pub or a church confessional makes no difference, nor does the time of day - midnight or sunrise.

 

[Lebbo73]

Who cares? Why should we care? Regardless of guilt he’s put the game’s reputation at risk. When will these blokes ever learn that hanging around pubs at midnight when you are an overpaid footballer is full of harmful potential consequences?

Bullshit, you can’t stop young people from having a life.
He should be playing with the CCTV footage not allegedly not proving the charges. It doesn’t mean that he’s innocent.