Greg Bird charged and released by Sharks

[Fathead]

And hence why Mr Bird must explain himself to the Sharks. This and lying to the CEO.

.

Darren Lockyer lied to the Broncos management when he implicitly told them that it was not he who had tackled the bar manager. Yet when confronted with better video evidence, came clean and said that he knew it was him but he didn't mean anything by it.

Lying to the club ? I suppose there are different standards for different players or perhaps different clubs treat players differently?

The Sharks know that Bird is a grub who has the potential to give them untold grief in the future so have decided to cut him in any way they can, so they will hang him out to dry for 'lying' to the CEO.

Double standards ? yep. But I fully support any moves to rid our game of the dickhead element and the Sharks should be applauded. ... If only the Broncos had the same guts ....

 

[Shorty]

When did Lockyer lie to his club? He(and they) lied to the media...
If the police have no case to answer for why then does Bird refuse to tell his club the whole story?

 

[innsaneink]

Darren Lockyer lied to the Broncos management when he implicitly told them that it was not he who had tackled the bar manager. Yet when confronted with better video evidence, came clean and said that he knew it was him but he didn't mean anything by it.

Lying to the club ? I suppose there are different standards for different players or perhaps different clubs treat players differently?

The Sharks know that Bird is a grub who has the potential to give them untold grief in the future so have decided to cut him in any way they can, so they will hang him out to dry for 'lying' to the CEO.

Double standards ? yep. But I fully support any moves to rid our game of the dickhead element and the Sharks should be applauded. ... If only the Broncos had the same guts ....

I think he said he didnt believe it was him.
Ie: "I dont think I did that" = "I was smashed, cant remember a thing"

 

[Sans Souci Sainter]

"How do you feel about that?" ;-)

 

[myanonymoususername]

Ummm, no she didn't.

The assault charges are going to be dropped cos the girl will not testify.
The police are trying to pin something on him.
The whole case has turned comical.

I wonder if they are going to charge with "False Accusation" aswell since she orignally blamed the flatmate also.

I assume the difference is Bird must have said something to police to try to dodge blame, whereas she hasn't said anything to them.

 

[DJShaksta]

Media reported early on in this case that she indicated to police when initially questioned that Mr.Watson was responsible for her injuries.

 

[myanonymoususername]

Maybe the difference is that he repeated that allegation in his formal record of interview. She hasn't done one of those, as far as I know.

I suspect also its just a backup charge for Bird - if there were no other charges they wouldn't worry, and its probably not worth bothering for her. Also she's the victim and it wouldn't be a good look for the police to charge her.

 

[Miller was a legend]

Maybe it was Watson's glass?

 

[myanonymoususername]

Mostly because she says she still loves him and Bird has been so desperate to play but neither of them will tell anyone (i.e the police, Sharks board) what happened.

I'd love to know what the "legal reasons" they can say nothing to no-one are. I'd have thought that if they were anything other than incriminating, they'd have no problems saying what happened. They are saying nothing to avoid providing police or lawyers with anything in their bullsh*t story to pick holes in.

 

[butchmcdick]

I'd love to know what the "legal reasons" they can say nothing to no-one are. I'd have thought that if they were anything other than incriminating, they'd have no problems saying what happened. They are saying nothing to avoid providing police or lawyers with anything in their bullsh*t story to pick holes in.

Perhaps they have signed an exclusive deal with new idea ?

 

[Snoop]

I'd love to know what the "legal reasons" they can say nothing to no-one are. I'd have thought that if they were anything other than incriminating, they'd have no problems saying what happened. They are saying nothing to avoid providing police or lawyers with anything in their bullsh*t story to pick holes in.

Hmmmm ... reminds me of a couple of fat arsed, loud mouthed, scum of the earth politicians.

 

[wittyfan]

The plot thickens!

 

[badav]

Darren Lockyer lied to the Broncos management when he implicitly told them that it was not he who had tackled the bar manager. Yet when confronted with better video evidence, came clean and said that he knew it was him but he didn't mean anything by it.

Lying to the club ? I suppose there are different standards for different players or perhaps different clubs treat players differently?

The Sharks know that Bird is a grub who has the potential to give them untold grief in the future so have decided to cut him in any way they can, so they will hang him out to dry for 'lying' to the CEO.

Double standards ? yep. But I fully support any moves to rid our game of the dickhead element and the Sharks should be applauded. ... If only the Broncos had the same guts ....

Gimme a break.

On one hand you have a bloke thats been charged with grevious bodily harm for allegedly glassing his girlfriend in the face and blaming it on someone else. And has still to this day yet to come clean.

On the other hand you have lockyer who 'tackled' a bar manager but wasnt charged with anything and the people involved never made a complaint to the club.

Yet you wanted the Broncos to treat it the same as the Greg Bird incident?

Your a deadset goose. Why don't the police have some guts and charge him with grevious bodily harm then too.

Jeezus. I hate to explain this to you, but every incident gets treated differently based on its merits. The Greg Bird incident is head and shoulders above the rest, hence why hes been suspended. Any idiot can figure that out.

 

[bartman]

Ummm, no she didn't.

The assault charges are going to be dropped cos the girl will not testify.
The police are trying to pin something on him.
The whole case has turned comical.

I wonder if they are going to charge with "False Accusation" aswell since she orignally blamed the flatmate also.

They were always going to charge him with this after the unsuccesful attempt to pin the damage on his golfer buddy came to light.

The whole case is far from comical, and if Bird goes under, it's simply what the merkin deserves for being so goddamn thick.

 

[vlad]

false accusation & public mischief , eh ? ......

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s314.html

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 314

False accusations etc
314 False accusations etc

A person who makes an accusation intending a person to be the subject of an investigation of an offence, knowing that other person to be innocent of the offence, is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.

---------

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s547b.html

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 547B

Public mischief
547B Public mischief

(1) Any person who, by any means, knowingly makes to a police officer any false representation that an act has been, or will be, done or that any event has occurred, or will occur, which act or event as so represented is such as calls for an investigation by a police officer , shall be liable on conviction before a Local Court to imprisonment for 12 months, or to a fine of 50 penalty units, or both.

---------

oops ... :roll:
​

 

[bartman]

Bird's probably cowering in his boots at learning of these new charges, since he seemed to desperate to fly under the radar for the damage to his g/fs face at the time.

Not quite the same as the rep footy he's used to, but I suppose he might be a chance of making the Long Bay first XIII...

 

[Kiki]

sounds to me like hes guilty of being an idiot than any real crime.

 

[Charlie124]

Seems to me he is guilty of a lot more than just being an idiot, i just hope they prove it in court.

 

[God-King Dean]

I think 8 years is sufficient...

 

[Tunguska]

false accusation & public mischief , eh ? ......

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s314.html

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 314

False accusations etc
314 False accusations etc

A person who makes an accusation intending a person to be the subject of an investigation of an offence, knowing that other person to be innocent of the offence, is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.

---------

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/nsw/consol_act/ca190082/s547b.html

CRIMES ACT 1900 - SECT 547B

Public mischief
547B Public mischief

(1) Any person who, by any means, knowingly makes to a police officer any false representation that an act has been, or will be, done or that any event has occurred, or will occur, which act or event as so represented is such as calls for an investigation by a police officer , shall be liable on conviction before a Local Court to imprisonment for 12 months, or to a fine of 50 penalty units, or both.

---------

oops ... :roll:
​

Mate you're a fool if you think that actually means anything in Australia. Chances are he'd cop a fine and some sort of caution for both those. Jail term is not a possibility.