Greg Inglis avoids conviction over assault

[gregstar]

as i said.

beating a woman can mean that you care for her.

 

[Timmah]

Yes, nothing happened.

That's why the police were involved and Robinson had a black eye :roll:

 

[macavity]

Yes, nothing happened.

That's why the police were involved and Robinson had a black eye :roll:

I don't think anyone is saying "nothing" happened, timbob.

 

[Evenflow]

I don't think anyone is saying "nothing" happened, timbob.

Exactly. I was wondering where someone said/implied that nothing happened.

 

[macavity]

Exactly. I was wondering where someone said/implied that nothing happened.

don't get me wrong, I think Inglis is a merkin.

but he may well be an innocent merkin -

 

[Karmawave]

Poor bugger misses a couple of weeks, and have a go at the beef he's packed on already.

He is going to be a big lad when he ends his rugby league career.

Fair dinkum, a couple of weeks off, and look at the weight he has stacked on.

Especially in his face.

I hope he isn't related to Owen Craigie.

 

[Broncodr01d]

Good news. It'll be great to see GI back doing what he does best.

Where are the members who had already tarred and feathered him?

 

[Timmah]

I don't think anyone is saying "nothing" happened, timbob.

The lawyers statement and Inglis' plea seems to indicate otherwise. It smells of the Greg Bird incident, where the girl is doing the "stand by her man" thing.

 

[GB!]

The lawyers statement and Inglis' plea seems to indicate otherwise. It smells of the Greg Bird incident, where the girl is doing the "stand by her man" thing.

pretty sure he is not her man anymore.....

 

[Evenflow]

The lawyers statement and Inglis' plea seems to indicate otherwise. It smells of the Greg Bird incident, where the girl is doing the "stand by her man" thing.

Once again, the lawyer said “The evidence that we are aware of that the police now have is there is no assault, rather Mr Inglis behaved as any right-thinking member of the community would have done – he protected her from harm,” Mr Croucher said.

Now i might be missing something but i can't see where he said/implied/stated/indicated etc that nothing happened, what he did say was that an assault never took place. Big difference.

I'm not saying for one second that proves he's innocent or guilty as i don't know because i wasn't there, i'm just pointing out how your post was somewhat misleading and just plain wrong given that nobody had actually said nothing happened.

I mean do you honestly think his lawyer and Inglis himself would be stupid enough come out and say nothing at all happened when obviously something did? That said that something doesn't instantly mean it was an assault one her.

I could be misreading your post but to me it comes across like you think he did assault her and that''s a bit rich given the club you support. I'd have thought you of all people would be a staunch believer of the phrase of innocent until proven guilty. Maybe that just applies when it's players from your own team involved aye....

 

[Lambretta]

The lawyers statement and Inglis' plea seems to indicate otherwise. It smells of the Greg Bird incident, where the girl is doing the "stand by her man" thing.

The thing that makes me think otherwise is that Greg Bird was a complete grub. It was well known he was a brainless tard - his behaviour on 1,000 other occasions showed this to be the case.

However, I've certainly not heard anything nasty or malicious about Greg Inglis and his past behaviour from whats been reported in the media certainly hasnt marked him out as a Grade A f**kwit.

There certainly appears to be alot more in this case that points towards the innocence of Greg rather than damning him for hitting his ex.

 

[macavity]

The lawyers statement and Inglis' plea seems to indicate otherwise.

no they don't, Mr Bush Lawyer.

 

[Timmah]

I could be misreading your post but to me it comes across like you think he did assault her and that''s a bit rich given the club you support. I'd have thought you of all people would be a staunch believer of the phrase of innocent until proven guilty. Maybe that just applies when it's players from your own team involved aye....

I don't see how "what club I support" comes into it.

It's just a bit rich that there are assault charges having been laid, that all of a sudden there now wasn't an assault and that he supposedly "acted like a gentleman".

If there was evidence to prosecute in the first place, why is there all of a sudden none now?

 

[ElectricEelMan]

I don't see how "what club I support" comes into it.

It's just a bit rich that there are assault charges having been laid, that all of a sudden there now wasn't an assault and that he supposedly "acted like a gentleman".

If there was evidence to prosecute in the first place, why is there all of a sudden none now?

Just because there is 'evidence' to prosecute doesn't mean the person charged is guilty. And it is looking more and more likely that the authorities who charged Inglis overreacted simply because they did not have all the evidence. It's like reading half a novel and thinking you know the whole story ...

 

[Evenflow]

I don't see how "what club I support" comes into it.

Because if it was your club you'd be supporting them to the hilt (and rightly so) instead of conducting your own kangaroo court and judging your opinions on bits and pieces of information and without knowing the full details.

It's just a bit rich that there are assault charges having been laid, that all of a sudden there now wasn't an assault and that he supposedly "acted like a gentleman".

So just because charges have been laid does that make him guilty does it? f**k me i hope for Brett Stewarts sake you aren't presiding over his case or anyone elses case who's been charged with something!

If you stop your selective reading for a minute and read it all you'll clearly see that new info came to light AFTER the initial charges were laid.

If there was evidence to prosecute in the first place, why is there all of a sudden none now?

Unlike your good self i don't moonlight as judge jury and executioner in matters i have little to no knowledge about. The people who should know the answer to that do know the answer to that and will make their own judgement accordingly. They won't just guess like you're so obviously doing.

It's funny, you so often sh*tcan publications such as the Telegraph and the like when they report on something that doesn't suit your agenda, yet you treat their word as gospel when you're trying to support your views and does suit you. There's plenty of words for that but the one that first springs to mind is hypocrite.

 

[badav]

I don't see how "what club I support" comes into it.

It's just a bit rich that there are assault charges having been laid, that all of a sudden there now wasn't an assault and that he supposedly "acted like a gentleman".

If there was evidence to prosecute in the first place, why is there all of a sudden none now?

Because more information has come to light.

I didnt think that would be a very hard concept to grasp.

I think you must have a fundamental lack of knowledge on how policing works. Charges are laid and dropped on a daily basis. Just because someone is charged doesn't mean they are guilty, or that police are in possession of all the facts.

 

[kia ora storm]

Odds on that GI plays this week...having said that he may eat the ball rather than pass it...looks like he has been into the KFC over the last few weeks ??.

 

[God-King Dean]

haha, I was thinking that too Kia Ora Storm.

BEHEMOTH !

 

[Bman26]

I bet he doesn't eat any chicken till saturday night now, he'll have a feast (if he plays)

 

[Lungfish]

I just googled kelley cox and this is what came up.

www.autobabes.com.au/content/Taipan/IMG_5551-1-400.jpg

Yuk! Ugly as a hat full ...