News JDB Trial

[Captain Apollo]

Raises a question in my mind....

Can the accused in a case like this request a 3rd trial to “clear their name”??

Not saying in any way that De Belin would do that here, but I’m certain he’s now going to be laboured with all the tags of what he’s been charged with by many parts of the community ... and mainly because of the twice-hung-jury...

I’m sure he’d have some sense of relief around not being found guilty ... but at the same time this mud will stick... primarily because of the result of both trials...

As far as I am aware, the prerogative to go to trial again or not is the sole province of the DPP. It depends on that person's judgement as to whether they think they have a reasonable chance of success or not if they go to trial again.

 

[Knight76]

The NRL arent a court of law. They're a private business entitled to protect their image and the image of their sponsors. If they have acted in a way that is illegal, im sure JDB will happily sue them if he's able to get the remaining charges dropped or is found not guilty in future trial.Im not an expert on this so i wouldnt even begin to speculate on if such litigation would be successful or not.

Not really sure why you posted this. Its almost like you read what I typed and figured you would reply just to get your opinion on something I didnt even say on the interwebs.

Never said nrl acted illegally. How would I know, im no lawyer or judge.

But thanks for the strawman all the same.

 

[AlwaysGreen]

So justice is like goal kicking?

 

[JamesRustle]

Should use The Bunker as the jury, then the judge can simply take the opposite as correct.

 

[nick87]

Not really sure why you posted this. Its almost like you read what I typed and figured you would reply just to get your opinion on something I didnt even say on the interwebs.

Never said nrl acted illegally. How would I know, im no lawyer or judge.

But thanks for the strawman all the same.

Your post basically boiled down to three things
1. that the NRL didnt allow him the presumption of innocence
2. that this was some kind of hatchet job by the NRL in the name of political correctness and
3. that it would blow up in the NRL's face.

My response was
1) They aren't the court of law, presumption of innocence relates to the legal system. They're a private business entitled to protect their image and reputation however they see fit, as long as it's legal.
2) To the point above, there is no hatchet job and this has nothing to do with political correctness... why is it people like you ALWAYS want to piss and moan about political correctness... yesssh talk about snowflakes.
3) Unless the NRL have done something illegal (and he already had a crack at that in federal court and they found in the NRL's favour) the in their handling of JDB, there is no zero chance it will "blow up in their face" and in fact it looks to me and most reasonable people, they've handled this entirely appropriately

 

[Last Week]

Your post basically boiled down to three things
1. that the NRL didnt allow him the presumption of innocence
2. that this was some kind of hatchet job by the NRL in the name of political correctness and
3. that it would blow up in the NRL's face.

My response was
1) They aren't the court of law, presumption of innocence relates to the legal system. They're a private business entitled to protect their image and reputation however they see fit, as long as it's legal.
2) To the point above, there is no hatchet job and this has nothing to do with political correctness... why is it people like you ALWAYS want to piss and moan about political correctness... yesssh talk about snowflakes.
3) Unless the NRL have done something illegal (and he already had a crack at that in federal court and they found in the NRL's favour) the in their handling of JDB, there is no zero chance it will "blow up in their face" and in fact it looks to me and most reasonable people, they've handled this entirely appropriately

This level of reason and factually backed opinion has no place on the internet.

 

[Knight76]

Your post basically boiled down to three things
1. that the NRL didnt allow him the presumption of innocence
2. that this was some kind of hatchet job by the NRL in the name of political correctness and
3. that it would blow up in the NRL's face.

My response was
1) They aren't the court of law, presumption of innocence relates to the legal system. They're a private business entitled to protect their image and reputation however they see fit, as long as it's legal.
2) To the point above, there is no hatchet job and this has nothing to do with political correctness... why is it people like you ALWAYS want to piss and moan about political correctness... yesssh talk about snowflakes.
3) Unless the NRL have done something illegal (and he already had a crack at that in federal court and they found in the NRL's favour) the in their handling of JDB, there is no zero chance it will "blow up in their face" and in fact it looks to me and most reasonable people, they've handled this entirely appropriately

Lol @ people like you comment. That tells me all I need to know.

1) My comment, not int the nrl he dont, was replying to a comment above mine, relating to the presumption of innocence.

2) Of course this has to do with political correctness. You said yourself it was put in place to protect the game and sponsors. Protect them from what exactly? Assume your answer will be from consequences from publicity and perceived inaction by nrl, and even assertions the NRL sanction the activity by not taking action against the accused. You cant even keep your own argument straight.

3) No chance it will blow up in their face if they have done nothing wrong. So sure you are, but if jdb is fount not guilty or no further charge is brought before a court, he has not been found guilty of anything, yet spent years out of the game. You say public opinion cant turn against this policy? There is a court of law, and a court of public opinion, the NRL has foung jdb guilty by court of public opinion.

 

[nick87]

Lol @ people like you comment. That tells me all I need to know.

2) Of course this has to do with political correctness. You said yourself it was put in place to protect the game and sponsors. Protect them from what exactly? Assume your answer will be from consequences from publicity and perceived inaction by nrl, and even assertions the NRL sanction the activity by not taking action against the accused. You cant even keep your own argument straight.

Everything i needed to know came when you wanted to scream about political correctness.

The NRL can't have a player running around in their competition when he's been charged with crimes that are a serious breach of his player conduct policy which he contractually obligated to abide by.

Just as I cant go to work if I'm being investigated for serious breaches to my employment conduct policy. My employer would tell me to stay home (either with or without pay) until the proceedings have concluded. That is what the NRL have done here. It's no different to a million other workplaces across the world. This was challenged in the federal court and ruled as appropriate way to handle this sort of potential misconduct.

And yes the NRL has image and the image of it's sponsors to be concerned about, which has financial implications. The code relies on it's sponsors to help fund the game, at both a professional and amateur/junior level. To take on that financial risk given the serious nature of the potential misconduct would be ridiculous.

Also just on a human level... standing down an alleged rapist from his very public position isn't what i'd call "political correctness"... nothing political about it, it's just the responsible thing to do from an organisation that has to look after the interests of thousands of people beyond JDB.

 

[myrrh ken]

Lessons have been learnt from the EPL and that rockspider Adam Johnson continuing to play after being charged.

While it might be bad where an innocent person is prevented from playing, its worse if a guilty person is allowed to play. Its risk mitigation.

 

[The_Frog]

Of course this has to do with political correctness. You said yourself it was put in place to protect the game and sponsors. Protect them from what exactly?

The same thing excluding Izzy Folou protects them from. Bad press and loss of business.

 

[Chimp]

Lessons have been learnt from the EPL and that rockspider Adam Johnson continuing to play after being charged.

While it might be bad where an innocent person is prevented from playing, its worse if a guilty person is allowed to play. Its risk mitigation.

Great comparison - but what I’d ask is, what damage did it actually do to the Premier League? I’m in the U.K, and from memory, there were some headlines for a couple of days about allowing him to continue playing, and that was it. The media made a bit of a storm of it for a couple of days, but the general public weren’t really that bothered and it certainly didn’t appear to have any detrimental effect on crowds, sponsorship etc..... People generally accepted that he had to be treat as innocent until proven guilty. The blame and bad feeling was very much towards Johnson and not the Premier League or his club.
The worst thing that happened is some nasty songs and chants from opposition fans to the teams where he previously played and some silly gifs.

 

[SBD82]

People who use the term “political correctness” unironically are dumb, and they should feel dumb.

 

[Gardenia]

As far as I am aware, the prerogative to go to trial again or not is the sole province of the DPP. It depends on that person's judgement as to whether they think they have a reasonable chance of success or not if they go to trial again.

This is how I understand it also . Also is it true that the DPP are able to how the numbers fell in jury deliberations and they can use this information to help decide whether to go for another trial ? I read that somewhere not sure if it’s correct ?

 

[Gardenia]

The same thing excluding Izzy Folou protects them from. Bad press and loss of business.

Correct . Bad PR hurts the brand and the bottom dollar . JDB hasn’t posted on social media though like Haynes silly friend.

 

[Bring back John Fifita]

Lessons have been learnt from the EPL and that rockspider Adam Johnson continuing to play after being charged.

While it might be bad where an innocent person is prevented from playing, its worse if a guilty person is allowed to play. Its risk mitigation.

I agree. When sponsors n PR are involved it's definitely risk mitigation.

I also think that if RL was the only major football code in Australia I don't think the full extent of the NFSD policy would have been brought about... but there is competition and with it all the PR, sponsorship etc etc. "The Brand" is the number one priority - and to stand one player down as long as they have - irrespective of guilt or innocence - is the smaller price to pay against bad publicity, PR etc.

So as you say - risk mitigation whether you like it or not.

 

[franklin2323]

Lessons have been learnt from the EPL and that rockspider Adam Johnson continuing to play after being charged.

While it might be bad where an innocent person is prevented from playing, its worse if a guilty person is allowed to play. Its risk mitigation.

There has been more players accused of such things then has been proven though.

More to the point if you have convicted criminals in the game then you lose all right to try and take the high road

 

[franklin2323]

I agree. When sponsors n PR are involved it's definitely risk mitigation.

I also think that if RL was the only major football code in Australia I don't think the full extent of the NFSD policy would have been brought about... but there is competition and with it all the PR, sponsorship etc etc. "The Brand" is the number one priority - and to stand one player down as long as they have - irrespective of guilt or innocence - is the smaller price to pay against bad publicity, PR etc.

So as you say - risk mitigation whether you like it or not.

NRL are experts at looking to do something without really doing it.

Instead of getting rid of the scumbags they potentially ban an innocent player for 3 years

 

[myrrh ken]

There has been more players accused of such things then has been proven though.

More to the point if you have convicted criminals in the game then you lose all right to try and take the high road

Very true. It's also a bit of a farce that we let home invaders back in but not mouth pissers

 

[Sans Souci Sainter]

Very true. It's also a bit of a farce that we let home invaders back in but not mouth pissers

#Listerineoutfortoddy

 

[franklin2323]

Very true. It's also a bit of a farce that we let home invaders back in but not mouth pissers

Also why it is laughable when NRL talks tough.