What's new
By:
Advanced search…
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Greg Bird charged with violent attack

If charges are dropped against Bird, should he return immediately?

  • Yes

    Votes: 85 50.9%

  • No

    Votes: 77 46.1%

  • I don't know/maybe/depends, ie. I'm too weak to have an opinion

    Votes: 5 3.0%
  • Total voters
    167
Status
Not open for further replies.
doggone

doggone

Juniors
Messages
738
I think Bird has caught himself in his own web. He probably wasn''t thinking clearly in the first place seeing he had been drinking. It's the old saying Honesty is the best policy.
I feel very sorry for him. He is such a talent.
 
Dave Q

Dave Q

Coach
Messages
11,065
doggone said:
I think Bird has caught himself in his own web. He probably wasn''t thinking clearly in the first place seeing he had been drinking. It's the old saying Honesty is the best policy.
I feel very sorry for him. He is such a talent.
Click to expand...

He would have got a discount on sentancing if he pleaded early.

Thats gone now.

He was an outstanding player, yes, absolutely but it turns out that he is a bad citizen.

He wont be the last NRL player to fall foul of the law.
 
ratsack2

ratsack2

Juniors
Messages
1,830
what I was intimating redback you fool. was that if he played for manly or brisbane, assaulted a female after a club function or 3 of them had sex with a female in a toilet in a pub, or kicked a car or pissed on the ground.

The fact he played for Cronulla seeled his fate, if he played for manly he gets off scot free, if he played for the Broncos the premier would have rung the police minister who would of called the cops and got it covered up.

If anyone else believes that the authorities and the NRL are above board, then you are just as foolish as redhack. We are the Sharks for some reason we are hated we will never win a comp as we will never be allowed to.
 
millersnose

millersnose

Post Whore
Messages
65,223
oh ffs

he glassed a woman in the face

it wasnt the fact he played for the sharks that 'sealed his fate' it was the act of ramming a glass into a womans face that sealed his fate
 
T

The Popper

Bench
Messages
4,353
I'm very disappointed, but it could well be that the decision may be reversed on appeal as is often the case, thus doubling the riches in legal pockets. After all, there was `no evidence' to support the conviction according to the prosecution.
I'll still wonder how we would've fared in last years playoffs had he been allowed to play before being convicted.
 
millersnose

millersnose

Post Whore
Messages
65,223
i think you read it wrong pop

it was the defence who claimed no evidence

the police, prosecution and magistrate didnt share that view

i am wondering wether or not bird got bad legal advice to fight the charges in the first place or wether he directed his defence to put up a fight

either way it was quite stupid
 
S

SirShire

First Grade
Messages
5,412
The Popper said:
I'm very disappointed, but it could well be that the decision may be reversed on appeal as is often the case, thus doubling the riches in legal pockets. After all, there was `no evidence' to support the conviction according to the prosecution.
I'll still wonder how we would've fared in last years playoffs had he been allowed to play before being convicted.
Click to expand...

Not the case Pop. If there was a reasonable doubt established as to how Bird could have glassed Milligan, he would have been found not guilty.

It's obvious that there wasn't from the verdict. He was hung from the words of his own girl friend about what has happened. With this verdict, the talk of 'you weren't there, it's mere speculation' seems rather irrelevant. They were the only ones in the room. She ended up being cut. He's been found guilty of doing it.

I don't know how anyone could now possibly deduce otherwise from this?
 
S

spider

Coach
Messages
15,841
now its over and the conviction stands, i still dont believe he jammed a glass in her face

i have always thought he was responsible for her injuries in some form - just not a deliberate lunge with a glass

there seemed to be substance to the comment reported early in the saga

"you did this to me"

"no i didn't"
 
Dave Q

Dave Q

Coach
Messages
11,065
spider said:
now its over and the conviction stands, i still dont believe he jammed a glass in her face

i have always thought he was responsible for her injuries in some form - just not a deliberate lunge with a glass

there seemed to be substance to the comment reported early in the saga

"you did this to me"

"no i didn't"
Click to expand...

If it was an accident he should have fessed up and she should have told the truth.

That would be the best legal advice.

He instructed his lawyers to fight.
 
S

spider

Coach
Messages
15,841
Dave Q said:
If it was an accident he should have fessed up and she should have told the truth.

That would be the best legal advice.
Click to expand...
i agree and i dont think it was an accident entirely

BUT - it was a result from his actions that she was inujured so whether it be an accident or not - its his fault
 
B

blacktip-reefy

Immortal
Messages
34,079
Well this has come as a shock to me. I had some pretty good inside info that his legal team was very confident that the charges would not have made it through to this point.
I wonder where it goes from here? I cant imagine Birds team just calling it quits on the word of an apprentice magistrate/solicitor a year into his job & a 100% guilty record.??
What will the appeals process, if any, be?
BTW a guy on the Gold Coast was given 4.5 years for glassing just yesterday. Will they send Bird away for that long? or will there be enough "doubt" to lessen the sentence? or , will the beyong reasonable doubt stand up in front of a stronger court?
 
S

SirShire

First Grade
Messages
5,412
It's the standard of proof in any criminal court.

He won't get 4.5 years. The glassing in GC was probably a GBH or malicious wounding charge? Bird was reckless wounding + public nuisance.
 
millersnose

millersnose

Post Whore
Messages
65,223
reefy btw

i refuse to believe for 1 second that you actually thought bird was innocent

now that it is over can i ask you why you put up this defence?
 
++ Gregos v.4

++ Gregos v.4

Bench
Messages
2,966
Regardless... the maximum sentence for any given offence that can be issued in any local Court is 2 years.

If the Bird team appeal, the entire Local Court transcript will be reviewed in the District Court by a Judge against the terms of the appeal as submitted.

EDIT: On an aside, I had no idea up until recently that it was being heard in the Local Court. I'm surprised that the ODPP didn't elect to have it sent to the District Court.
 
Last edited:
gregstar

gregstar

Referee
Messages
20,395
millersnose said:
reefy btw

i refuse to believe for 1 second that you actually thought bird was innocent

now that it is over can i ask you why you put up this defence?
Click to expand...
favourite player?

hell, if i'd seen michael o'connor stab someone to death & rape the corpse in 1985, i'd have stepped in to cop the blame.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Top