No Bulldogs to be charged ?

[Muffdaddy]

Still haven't heard anything yet.
Anyone????

 

[ibeme]

Nope. Been listening to the radio all day, and haven't heard a thing mentioned on the topic at all.

 

[ibeme]

I don't know how reliable this information is, but the latest is that an announcement will be made at 5:30pm by the DPP. There was more, but I'm not prepared to go into that because it's unsubstantiated.

 

[[furrycat]]

The local radio around here has claimed players have been charged... Shows again the reliability of the media.

 

[ibeme]

]The local radio around here has claimed players have been charged... Shows again the reliability of the media.

When was that? What radio station?

 

[Muffdaddy]

Good luck ibeme.
I hope its what you want to hear. No sarcasm intended at all.

Me personally, I just hope it puts some sort of closure on the whole thing. By that I mean, if the DPP finds there is enough evidence to charge someone, do it quickly so the rest of the suspected players can get on with life, OR, if there is not enough evidence, then the Canterbury club needs to act in accordance with its policy and code of conduct and deal with the player/s that initially brought the young lady in question back to the hotel.
If that player didn't bring her back, then none of this would have happened.

Just one last thing. I think its a bit suss that there is a rumour that the DPP will make its findings known at the exact time that the Dogs will be taking the field against the Warriors.... :shock:

 

[[furrycat]]

Triple Z, Northern Rivers Radio station. I contacted them and they didn't seem to have many answers to their "source" so I'm not taking their word for it. I'll believe it when the police make their announcement.

 

[ibeme]

Good luck ibeme.
I hope its what you want to hear. No sarcasm intended at all.

Me personally, I just hope it puts some sort of closure on the whole thing. By that I mean, if the DPP finds there is enough evidence to charge someone, do it quickly so the rest of the suspected players can get on with life, OR, if there is not enough evidence, then the Canterbury club needs to act in accordance with its policy and code of conduct and deal with the player/s that initially brought the young lady in question back to the hotel.
If that player didn't bring her back, then none of this would have happened.

Just one last thing. I think its a bit suss that there is a rumour that the DPP will make its findings known at the exact time that the Dogs will be taking the field against the Warriors.... :shock:

Thanks for you well wishes. I agree with your comments.

5:30 sounds odd to me also.

 

[innsaneink]

5.30 pm on a Friday arvo????

I woulda thought the office'd be locked
& the DPP havin a few coldies at the
end of a hard workin week.

 

[Eels Dude]

The law doesn't allow for grey areas when it comes to guilt.

Take this scenario:

A football player goes to a charity event to raise money for a worthwhile charity. The next day, someone comes out and accuses the player of sexual misconduct in a hallway. The player never did a thing, but it's only his word against hers. The police investigation can't prove one way or the other.

The outcome? The game is brought into disrepute. There's a grey cloud of suspicion hanging over the player's head. Sponsors are reviewing their position. Disciplinary action is discussed by the NRL. This is the player's reward for trying to help a charity? All because a false, attention seeking, accusation has created a grey area - through no fault of his own.

They have to be considered completely innocent of any crime unless it can be proven otherwise. No grey areas.

Ok let's twist that idea so that the player did actually did harrass or assault that woman in the hallway. However as there is no proof, it's all her word against his, he gets off scott free. So just because there is no evidence does this mean that he is 100% innocent?

 

[[furrycat]]

Yes it does. There is nothing to say he did it.

 

[Eels Dude]

And that's where the problem lies. He committed the crime yet he is 100% innocent. Don't you see a problem with that?

 

[ibeme]

The law doesn't allow for grey areas when it comes to guilt.

Take this scenario:

A football player goes to a charity event to raise money for a worthwhile charity. The next day, someone comes out and accuses the player of sexual misconduct in a hallway. The player never did a thing, but it's only his word against hers. The police investigation can't prove one way or the other.

The outcome? The game is brought into disrepute. There's a grey cloud of suspicion hanging over the player's head. Sponsors are reviewing their position. Disciplinary action is discussed by the NRL. This is the player's reward for trying to help a charity? All because a false, attention seeking, accusation has created a grey area - through no fault of his own.

They have to be considered completely innocent of any crime unless it can be proven otherwise. No grey areas.

Ok let's twist that idea so that the player did actually did harrass or assault that woman in the hallway. However as there is no proof, it's all her word against his, he gets off scott free. So just because there is no evidence does this mean that he is 100% innocent?

In the eyes of the law? Yes.

The law is biased towards protecting the innocent, making sure that innocent people don't get thrown in the clinker. The view is that it's better to have a bad egg walking the street rather than rob the innocent of their freedom. This isn't 100% failsafe, but it's they only way they can do it.

 

[Dogaholic]

And that's where the problem lies. He committed the crime yet he is 100% innocent. Don't you see a problem with that?

Ok, but look at it this way. Let's say they are found guilty. But what IF they were really innocent of their crime?

would you risk locking away an innocent person with a family and all to live for?

 

[innsaneink]

I don't know how reliable this information is, but the latest is that an announcement will be made at 5:30pm by the DPP. There was more, but I'm not prepared to go into that because it's unsubstantiated.

Strange I've heard nothing and had the radio on all day too.....
What radio stn/tv channel/who did you hear this from ibeme>?

 

[Eels Dude]

I agree with you there but not everyone including myself will be looking at it through the eyes of the law. If the DPP doesn't have enough evidence to charge anyone there will still be a cloud of doubt over the players and the club. It would be dissapointing if they are actually innocent but it appears though we may never know.

 

[ibeme]

I don't know how reliable this information is, but the latest is that an announcement will be made at 5:30pm by the DPP. There was more, but I'm not prepared to go into that because it's unsubstantiated.

Strange I've heard nothing and had the radio on all day too.....
What radio stn/tv channel/who did you hear this from ibeme>?

I read it at the kennel. It was 'a mate who knows a mate' kind of deal, which is why I stated that I don't know how reliable it is. It's also why I didn't divulge anymore information.

 

[Dogaholic]

If they find them innocent and they are wrong - we will never know. So i will presume innocence. they will be dealt with in the after life - if there really is one.

 

[innsaneink]

I don't know how reliable this information is, but the latest is that an announcement will be made at 5:30pm by the DPP. There was more, but I'm not prepared to go into that because it's unsubstantiated.

Strange I've heard nothing and had the radio on all day too.....
What radio stn/tv channel/who did you hear this from ibeme>?

I read it at the kennel. It was 'a mate who knows a mate' kind of deal, which is why I stated that I don't know how reliable it is. It's also why I didn't divulge anymore information.

Aaahaaaa......forum hearsay....those forums have been known
to spread scurrilous gossip and rumour. Its true.
I heard it on the radio. :lol:

 

[ibeme]

I agree with you there but not everyone including myself will be looking at it through the eyes of the law. If the DPP doesn't have enough evidence to charge anyone there will still be a cloud of doubt over the players and the club. It would be dissapointing if they are actually innocent but it appears though we may never know.

Which is why we're supposed to consider people to be innocent unless proven otherwise. It's fairer to assume a questionable/guilty person to be innocent, than assume an innocent person to be guilty.

Ask yourself the question. Would you rather someone locked up when they are innocent of assault, or the real attacker allowed to free?