Greg Bird charged with violent attack

[Dave Q]

Balh bla blah bla blah blah blah.

Arent you guys bored with this sh*t yet?

Mate, this thread hasnt even got started yet.

Bird hasnt even entered a plea.

The high brow legal stuff has yet to materialise.

 

[cjs1822]

do you reckon we could get this thread to over 10000 posts ?

what's the record on this thread?

is this the highest?

 

[gunnamatta bay]

Cheers Gunna.

I agree that victims compensation and well-being are more important that those of the offender (once the offence has been established).

In this case, the alleged victim doest seem to fit that stereotype of an assault victim, for her own reasons.

However, if we dont address the offender side of the equation, the offender may well become very ill and/or re-offend. That often effects their family and loved ones and other innocents.

As you know Gunna I know some prison officers. They know all about the impediments to rehabilitation.

Id say Bird is experiencing significant anxiety and trauma at the moment.

Guilty or innocent, he really doesnt have much to look forward to.

It cant be undone, so we really need to embrace effective strategies that prevent or minimise these terrible situations. We need strategies that let us and Bird cope with the Birds of the world (guilty or innocent).

We ignore the alleged offender's mind-set at our peril.

Hows the restaurant going?

Good mate. Just changed the menu.

 

[gunnamatta bay]

Mate, this thread hasnt even got started yet.

Bird hasnt even entered a plea.

The high brow legal stuff has yet to materialise.

Yep my guess the other day was a trial date sometime in June next year. Maybe!

 

[Dave Q]

Yep my guess the other day was a trial date sometime in June next year. Maybe!

Thats a bit ambitious, 12 months from today might be more realistic.

I'd say that the brief will take some time to compile, especially if the cops want to use experts.

Then the defence will want time to examine the case against them. They may have to call their own experts etc.

There might be agreement on some issues but not on others.

These experts dont come cheap and their availability is very limited.

Theres some legal issues to sort out too. For example, as to whether the girl can be compelled to give evidence, I think thats in the Evidence Act, I'd have to check, Im not a criminal lawyer. Not that they'd want to call her unless they have to-in order to prove the element/s.

The cops know now from her public statements that she is unlikely to be helpful, thats a bit of a problem.

The cops also should give some due consideration for the charges, which they can amend at almost any time.

Charges of a lower severity might be easier to prove than if they chuck the book at him.

If they select the wrong charges, they are in trouble becasue as we know, its all or nothing. Innocent or guilty of the charge. Theres no penalty for meeting one or two elements out of three.

I read something in the paper interviewing his ex. She spoke highly of him and said he was a "mediator" type person in real life. Words to the effect that he was of noble character etc. As far as she was concerned, he was a mother Tersea in footy boots. It may have just been the media, but her account of his general character was exceedingly good-natured.

That was quite interesting reading, I dont know if she was being truthful as I dont know him, but a statement from her might be good for sentancing.

Mr Bird is like most of us, that is, a much more complex figure than people would think.

Im prepared to keep my mind open until we find out more.

In the meantime, as Ive bored everyone stupid with, he should be playing footy.

And thats despite my belief that he was unkind to former rabbitoh Shane Martene. I'll never forget that.

 

[gunnamatta bay]

yes I was being ambitious and you outline the complexities nicely.

So it looks like there will be no resolution well into the second half of 2009. What stance will the club take? It's a long time to wait for a result.

 

[Dave Q]

yes I was being ambitious and you outline the complexities nicely.

So it looks like there will be no resolution well into the second half of 2009. What stance will the club take? It's a long time to wait for a result.

Thats an interesting and relevent question.

Notwithstanding whether he is found guilty or innocent, the victim is still an alleged victim.

Victims that we know about are the club, the fans and third parties with an interest in the success of the sharks.

I think the club has already painted itself into a corner. It was no doubt well-intended at the time or they saw some benefit, but it may well come back to haunt them. Well, it already has.

PKF didnt help with their public stand. Thats just more pressure. They shouldnt purport to interfere with the internal matters of the club in this way. They might have got some credit for it in some quarters I suppose.

Other than the cops withdrawing the case, or a plea-bargain, nothing is going to change re Bird legally speaking.

So I suppose the sharks etc suffer by taking a stance a bit too early.

It might be good PR and everything, but the price is very very heavy.

One thing we know is that they will always back their own decisions, becuase nobody likes admitting that they are wrong.

And because of this pride or perhaps errant belief that he has done something wrong, he will either sit the year out or be released. Thats my feeling anyway.

Id say a release gets rid of the problem as while a player who is uninjured yet cant play, still chews up precious salary cap cash.

The NRL will probably back the sharks (as they backed up the dogs) and he will have to head overseas and earn more money (eventually).

 

[STSAE]

Maybe the fact hes been charged has little bearing on the clubs stance other than to force their hand early???

Its not as though it was his 1st off field indiscretion, in fact its not his 1st this year. And we dont know how many have been swept under the carpet, like Carney. Or how many warnings hes had from the club in the past.

Theres the other problem of lying to the club. That alone coupled with repeated discipline problems would be enough for a sacking, if only for the club to try and save face, for fear of looking like theyre covering something up. And thats something ALL clubs have done, although it wont be happening often anymore I gather.

All NRL contracts apparently have behavioural clauses.


And not trolling just commenting on whats happened.

:lol::lol:

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Its not as though it was his 1st off field indiscretion, in fact its not his 1st this year.

He has no indescretions at all, let alone this year.
He was cleared of any wrong doing in Brisbane when the cops were shown to be liars.

he was cleared of any wrong doing in the incident with the cage fighter.

he was not charged with the fusion incident until the accident with his girlfriend.

Where do you get so much of this incorrect information from that you post?

 

[STSAE]

He has no indescretions at all, let alone this year.
He was cleared of any wrong doing in Brisbane when the cops were shown to be liars.

he was cleared of any wrong doing in the incident with the cage fighter.

he was not charged with the fusion incident until the accident with his girlfriend.

Where do you get so much of this incorrect information from that you post?

Well its the definition of "indiscretion" that is the problem.

Its not necessarily that hes done anything wrong, more put himself and the club in the firing line and the news, in my opinion.

Can you say Turds NEVER been in the news over an indiscretion???? My definition of indiscretion.

And just cos someone CLEARED that means the did NOTHING wrong???

:lol::lol:

 

[carcharias]

Well its the definition of "indiscretion" that is the problem.

Its not necessarily that hes done anything wrong, more put himself and the club in the firing line and the news, in my opinion.

Can you say Turds NEVER been in the news over an indiscretion???? My definition of indiscretion.

And just cos someone CLEARED that means the did NOTHING wrong???

:lol::lol:

The video footage of him being arrested proved the cops were liars.

no two ways about it.

clear cut bullshyte on their part.

 

[Brookie]

'tell him his dreaming'.....lol

http://www.rugbyleaguelive.com/Articles/3036/2008/09/12/Birds_bid_for_finals_football_shot_down_in_flames_.aspx

 

[spider]

Nor would Bird's club boss, Tony Zappia: "Until further information is provided by police the club has no intention to review the decision. The club has not been made aware of what did or did not occur by either Greg or the alleged victim," Zappia told Fairfax papers.

Coach Ricky Stuart has insisted the team is not behind Bird's push for reinstatement.

that is what may be considered a forgone conclusion

 

[Frenzy.]

I find it hard a woman would say she is standing by her man and loves him if he had maliciously attacked her with a glass.

It's not like they have been together for years and is conditioned to abuse like watmoughs ex allegedy was.

I think most men think like that Surely. I used to for sure. But having worked 10 years in the big house now I have to say it's not a rarity, in fact it almost seems the norm.

On every visiting day the place is full of women coming in to see the blokes who have bashed, maimed and/or disfigured them. So many of these weirdly dependent women are out and out glamours as well.

I once asked one of our woman psychiatrists why this happened and she waffled off some highbrow psychiatric jive talk about something that was so out there that I let it slip quietly from my mind.

By the way, on a different note. There was talk in here earlier in the thread about the sentencing in GBH cases. Someone started it out saying the max was 25 years (which is true). Last night though as part of my job I had to interview and assess a crook that had just been sentenced on a GBH. Multiple offender. 3rd or 4th time in. Offense this time was to smash a punter with a schooie glass in a pub

Got 6 months

That's all

6 months

Just thought that'd interest some.

 

[samshark]

Thats a bit ambitious, 12 months from today might be more realistic.

I'd say that the brief will take some time to compile, especially if the cops want to use experts.

Then the defence will want time to examine the case against them. They may have to call their own experts etc.

There might be agreement on some issues but not on others.

These experts dont come cheap and their availability is very limited.

Theres some legal issues to sort out too. For example, as to whether the girl can be compelled to give evidence, I think thats in the Evidence Act, I'd have to check, Im not a criminal lawyer. Not that they'd want to call her unless they have to-in order to prove the element/s.

The cops know now from her public statements that she is unlikely to be helpful, thats a bit of a problem.

The cops also should give some due consideration for the charges, which they can amend at almost any time.

Charges of a lower severity might be easier to prove than if they chuck the book at him.

If they select the wrong charges, they are in trouble becasue as we know, its all or nothing. Innocent or guilty of the charge. Theres no penalty for meeting one or two elements out of three.

I read something in the paper interviewing his ex. She spoke highly of him and said he was a "mediator" type person in real life. Words to the effect that he was of noble character etc. As far as she was concerned, he was a mother Tersea in footy boots. It may have just been the media, but her account of his general character was exceedingly good-natured.

That was quite interesting reading, I dont know if she was being truthful as I dont know him, but a statement from her might be good for sentancing.

Mr Bird is like most of us, that is, a much more complex figure than people would think.

Im prepared to keep my mind open until we find out more.

In the meantime, as Ive bored everyone stupid with, he should be playing footy.

And thats despite my belief that he was unkind to former rabbitoh Shane Martene. I'll never forget that.

I think this will be over long before June next year.
Miligan can not be compelled to give evidence unless she first provides a victim statement. All evidence intended to be put forward by the prosecution must be served on the defence at least 14 days prior to hearing (see Evidence Act)
Charges in place are the GBH with a back up of Assault ABH. GBH wont go forward as her injuries dont amount to GBH and it would be nigh impossible to prove without a victim. They may have a crack with the assault ABH but again, how do you prove it without a victim and/or witness.

It may be right that in the end both charges are dropped. There certainly looks to be more involved in this. Interesting to note that when first speaking to police and blaming Bird's mate it was said that the mate had THROWN the glass at her. So was it Bird that threw it, was it an accident, intentional, did something else happen??? In any case it certainly is appearing less likely that he actually glassed her in the face as the media has portrayed him to.

 

[gunnamatta bay]

interesting article:

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/bird-bids-to-play-part-in-finals/2008/09/11/1220857741011.html



Bird bids to play part in finals but Sharks and NRL stand firm on ban
Andrew Webster | September 12, 2008
SUSPENDED Cronulla lock Greg Bird has made a desperate plea to NRL chief executive David Gallop to play in this year's finals series - and failed.
With the Sharks in their best position in years to finally win a breakthrough premiership, Bird's manager, Gavin Orr, and lawyer Andrew O'Brien met Gallop yesterday afternoon to state the Australian and NSW representative's case for reinstatement on the eve of the play-offs. They asked why Bird could not play even though he had not been convicted of allegedly glassing girlfriend Katie Milligan last month.
"We asked why there should be special circumstances for a rugby league player," O'Brien told the Herald last night. "We believe Greg deserves the benefit of the doubt. He is innocent until it is proven otherwise."
But Gallop and the Sharks weren't budging last night.
Gallop made it clear to Bird's representatives that the decision to stand down Bird had been made by the club but it had his "full support", and Sharks chief executive Tony Zappia said last night: "Until further information is provided by police the club has no intention to review the decision. The club has not been made aware of what did or did not occur by either Greg or the alleged victim."
Gavin Orr could not be contacted last night, and his brother and partner, Chris, refused to comment. But is understood they won't lobby the Sharks about reinstating their client.
Gallop also held discussions with Sharks coach Ricky Stuart, who told him that the push for his star player's return was not being driven by the club.
"I spoke to Ricky Stuart, and he agrees with the position as it stands as well," Gallop said. "He [Orr] seemed to be under the misapprehension that the decision to stand Greg Bird down was made by the NRL. I advised him it was the Sharks' decision but it had our full support.
"The fact is the various matters are still very much in the hands of police …"
It is understood one of the key reasons the Sharks do not want to play Bird is pressure from major sponsor LG Electronics, which is embarrassed by the adverse publicity the incident has generated.
There is no suggestion the Sharks are behind this last-ditch push to have Bird feature in the finals, starting with tomorrow night's qualifying final against the Raiders at Toyota Stadium.
While Bird watches from the sidelines, other NRL players have been allowed to play despite facing serious police charges.
Warriors winger Michael Crockett has not been banned from playing while he defends himself against sexual assault allegations. And Bird's teammate, Ben Pomeroy, has been allowed to continue playing while defending allegations he assaulted a 24-year-old man at a concert of American band Korn at the Sydney Entertainment Centre in April still before the courts.
"There is no black-and-white rule about these situations," Gallop said. "Clubs have to weigh up the circumstances and in particular look at the extent to which there are facts in dispute."
Bird has not played since being charged with maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm on Milligan at his Cronulla unit on August 24.
He is due to face court on October 8. He is also due to face court in relation to an incident involving a 20-year-old woman at a Cronulla nightclub in January.

 

[gunnamatta bay]

And Bird's teammate, Ben Pomeroy, has been allowed to continue playing while defending allegations he assaulted a 24-year-old man at a concert of American band Korn at the Sydney Entertainment Centre in April still before the courts.

Is there some sort of discrimination going on here? If you allegedly assault a male you continue to play but a female? Forget it!

 

[blacktip-reefy]

There is no reason to read past the part where it says LG.
There is the entire story.

 

[sharks8601]

im still lead to believe he will be at the sharks next year

 

[cb4]

dont believe it