Michael Chee-Kam charged with assault on Uber driver

[myrrh ken]

Scott Bolton has pleaded guilty to common assault. No jail time but effectively is on a good behaviour bond - https://www.9news.com.au/national/2...-pleads-guilty-to-common-assault-at-bondi-bar

So charged in June last year for doing a Trump-style grab of a woman during a dinner with teammates. Plays on till September. Then pleads guilty this year.

Anyone else have a problem with this?

 

[SBD82]

So charged in June last year for doing a Trump-style grab of a woman during a dinner with teammates. Plays on till September. Then pleads guilty this year.

Anyone else have a problem with this?

I get what you're saying, but the legal system in NSW is notoriously slow.

There's every chance it took this long for the prosecution to supply the brief, for Bolton's lawyers to respond, and for the prosecution and the defence to negotiate the plea to the lesser charge. To be totally honest, if this was the scenario, it's all happened relatively quickly.

 

[Frailty]

There a numerous jobs where if you have any criminal conviction you can not be employed, even more if it is a violent crime.

The NRL and society as a whole would benefit from having a zero tolerance approach to these offences.

• The NRL would benefit from extremely good publicity for taking vicious crimes, especially focusing on Domestic Violence, seriously. They could be promoted as the only sport in Australia to take act on this issue rather than relying on promotion of white ribbon day, etc.
• By taking this action, players will be more likely to consider the implications of their behaviour and clubs will likely put more processes in place.
• As much as people will like to disagree with this statement, how sport responds to domestic violence heavily impacts how these crimes are viewed in the broader society. At the moment, the attitude that it doesn't really matter as long as the offender is good at sport belittles the anti-DV messaging that we like to think exists. This is an opportunity for the NRL to actually show (rather than say via a ribbon) that violent crimes have consequences and will not be tolerated.

 

[AJB1102]

No sport will ties it's hands with mandatory bans for certain offenses.

Imagine if they had to sit a 32 year old Inglis out for a season for DUI. Or a life ban for saving his missus back in his prime.

Professional sporting organisations are businesses first and foremost. They'll pay lip service to any cause that will paint them in a positive light by aligning their values with those of their target market of the day.

 

[Perth Red]

No sport will ties it's hands with mandatory bans for certain offenses.

Imagine if they had to sit a 32 year old Inglis out for a season for DUI. Or a life ban for saving his missus back in his prime.

Professional sporting organisations are businesses first and foremost. They'll pay lip service to any cause that will paint them in a positive light by aligning their values with those of their target market of the day.

This, until corporates or fans walk away because of the behavior pf players the NRL will continue to pay lip service. There is no sign of that happening so they are quite content to smack on the wrist and talk about second chances in life.

 

[T.S Quint]

No sport will ties it's hands with mandatory bans for certain offenses.

Imagine if they had to sit a 32 year old Inglis out for a season for DUI. Or a life ban for saving his missus back in his prime.

Professional sporting organisations are businesses first and foremost. They'll pay lip service to any cause that will paint them in a positive light by aligning their values with those of their target market of the day.

I don’t think there’s much doubt that you are correct in that these harsh punishments won’t happen. That won’t stop me from hoping that they will happen though.

 

[thorson1987]

So charged in June last year for doing a Trump-style grab of a woman during a dinner with teammates. Plays on till September. Then pleads guilty this year.

Anyone else have a problem with this?

Is that what actually happen?

If so that would come under indecent assault, which the court said there was none of.

 

[T.S Quint]

This, until corporates or fans walk away because of the behavior pf players the NRL will continue to pay lip service. There is no sign of that happening so they are quite content to smack on the wrist and talk about second chances in life.

Fans might not be walking away, but you can bet that there are many potential fans that avoid the game because of its image of a league of thugs.
I know of quite a few people who only know about NRL from what they see on tv and in the papers. These are the people who would rather send their kids to play soccer, Aussie Rules or Union because there is less chance of them being surrounded by moronic brutes.

Making sure that the game is seen in the media as tough on these idiots who break the law is essential for its growth.

 

[Valheru]

There a numerous jobs where if you have any criminal conviction you can not be employed, even more if it is a violent crime.

The NRL and society as a whole would benefit from having a zero tolerance approach to these offences.

• The NRL would benefit from extremely good publicity for taking vicious crimes, especially focusing on Domestic Violence, seriously. They could be promoted as the only sport in Australia to take act on this issue rather than relying on promotion of white ribbon day, etc.
• By taking this action, players will be more likely to consider the implications of their behaviour and clubs will likely put more processes in place.
• As much as people will like to disagree with this statement, how sport responds to domestic violence heavily impacts how these crimes are viewed in the broader society. At the moment, the attitude that it doesn't really matter as long as the offender is good at sport belittles the anti-DV messaging that we like to think exists. This is an opportunity for the NRL to actually show (rather than say via a ribbon) that violent crimes have consequences and will not be tolerated.

Out of interest which jobs cant you do with a criminal conviction?

 

[Timmah]

Out of interest which jobs cant you do with a criminal conviction?

Pretty much anything that requires a Police Check or Working with Children Check I imagine.

 

[Chin Music]

Seems that maybe Bolton plead not guilty to the original charge, charge was then downgraded to common assault & he plead guilty to that ?

 

[myrrh ken]

Is that what actually happen?

If so that would come under indecent assault, which the court said there was none of.

The court said that because the parties agreed to the facts as part of a plea bargain.

 

[Valheru]

Pretty much anything that requires a Police Check or Working with Children Check I imagine.

That's not true

There are plenty of jobs requiring both of those things that you can do if you have a DUI.

Either way, quite clearly people are excluded from those roles due to convictions because they are considered a danger to people during the course of their job e.g. children in the case of teachers.

So banning sports players for a single criminal conviction would not be to protect anyone and would be a moralistic stance, one that goes beyond the judicial punishments.

 

[Perth Red]

Out of interest which jobs cant you do with a criminal conviction?

Depends on the conviction.

 

[Perth Red]

That's not true

There are plenty of jobs requiring both of those things that you can do if you have a DUI.

Either way, quite clearly people are excluded from those roles due to convictions because they are considered a danger to people during the course of their job e.g. children in the case of teachers.

So banning sports players for a single criminal conviction would not be to protect anyone and would be a moralistic stance, one that goes beyond the judicial punishments.

Not to protect people, but to negate possible negative business impacts via companies not wanting to be associated or people not wanting to be fans of the NRL. That of course suggests that harsher punishment leads to less chance of crimes happening, something that seems to be very debatable.

 

[SBD82]

That's not true

There are plenty of jobs requiring both of those things that you can do if you have a DUI.

Either way, quite clearly people are excluded from those roles due to convictions because they are considered a danger to people during the course of their job e.g. children in the case of teachers.

So banning sports players for a single criminal conviction would not be to protect anyone and would be a moralistic stance, one that goes beyond the judicial punishments.

Moralism is absolutely the reason that people call for these sorts of punishments (NB I'm not making any judgements, just pointing out what I believe to be fact).

Were the focus reducing recidivism, it would be preferable for the offenders to remain in the NRL. All of the research on criminogenic risk indicates that people are less likely to offend if they are employed.

 

[avocado]

One is an action within a sport, breaking the rules only of that sport, where the governing body has complete jurisdiction; the other is a criminal act in a foreign country (which he was convicted for and sentenced for by the relevant authorities).

Different but similar. Cricket Australia have cracked down hard on these guys, perhaps too hard, but they’ve sent out a message loud and clear that this behaviour won’t be tolerated.
Meanwhile NRL players continue to act like brainless morons with little consequence.
Fonua-Blake for example should be shovelling concrete or emptying garbage bins for a living.

 

[Fat Tony Kandos]

Any member of Australian society who relies upon National Rugby League to inform them not to commit criminal offences is mentally deficient, and, has zero hope in life anyway.

You cannot change my mind.

 

[myrrh ken]

Were the focus reducing recidivism, it would be preferable for the offenders to remain in the NRL. All of the research on criminogenic risk indicates that people are less likely to offend if they are employed.

Surely it would depend on the job and crime.

A footballers life with lotsa money, lotsa time on his hands and a pretty skewed experience of life would probably contribute to upper thigh grabbing behaviour.

 

[Timmah]

Different but similar. Cricket Australia have cracked down hard on these guys, perhaps too hard, but they’ve sent out a message loud and clear that this behaviour won’t be tolerated.
Meanwhile NRL players continue to act like brainless morons with little consequence.
Fonua-Blake for example should be shovelling concrete or emptying garbage bins for a living.

They aren't similar in any way, shape or form lol