Raiders stand down Goodwin and Carney over club claims

[sass]

I understand that. Yet at the same time it can take the police weeks and weeks to investigate any claims. They can do that and find they've nothing against him. I don't think it's fair for Carney to sit out for a month only to be found out that he's been cleared. If the cops are so sure about his guilt then he should be charged straight away, if they're not, give him the benefit of the doubt and charge him once they've got enough evidence.

oh no I didn't mean to imply they should stand him down till police investigations finish ... I just meant I have no problem with canberra standing him down until they make their decision on what to do with him (is using the same principle we use in criminal law)

 

[Patorick]

Awaits photo of this on the back page of the Telegraph tomorrow.

 

[Chapsta]

oh no I didn't mean to imply they should stand him down till police investigations finish ... I just meant I have no problem with canberra standing him down until they make their decision on what to do with him (is using the same principle we use in criminal law)

Carney should post bail.

 

[Chapsta]

Awaits photo of this on the back page of the Telegraph tomorrow.

That's right. It sells. Fans love this sh*t.

 

[Eels Dude]

nah I don't think so.

this is just analagous to a court remanding an alleged criminal in custody until their trial is concluded and guilt or innocence is proven.

you do it because it's safer not to have the person on the streets/on the field until you know what really happened.

*nerd*

*pushes up glasses*

No, They do that because they believe the accused is either a danger to society or may try to run if released from custody. There would be other reasons to. Either way, every person has the right to apply for bail. It's got nothing to do with the belief that they're guility or innocent from the police or the courts. And it's got nothing to do with "until you know what really happened"

"Pushes her glasses back down"

 

[Bobby DIGital]

I pick you up from the club...take you home to make some love...gotta surprise, close ya eyes...i'm gonna cover you with suds..

*boomb, boom, boom, boom, boom....boomb, boom, boom, boom, boom*

ima give you some poo poo, ima give you some pee pee, ima give you some doo doo, wash it down with some wee wee...this is the remix edition of a song about pissin, I got that peein leakin freakin and there's juice in the kitchen...

 

[sass]

No, They do that because they believe the accused is either a danger to society or may try to run if released from custody. There would be other reasons to. Either way, every person has the right to apply for bail. It's got nothing to do with the belief that they're guility or innocent from the police or the courts. And it's got nothing to do with "until you know what really happened"

"Pushes her glasses back down"

ok this is the weirdest argument ever to be having on a league forum. but whatever, I've taken the bait now. but yes it is analagous.

I didn't say it's like a real court case. I said it's the same principle.

courts remand defendants they believe are dangerous or at risk of running. the comparable danger in this situation is a danger to the canberra club's reputation and the reputation of the game by keeping a (possibly) badly behaved player on.

the bail comparison is - in contrast - fairly irrelevant. it exists because we deem the deprivation of liberty to be a supremely serious matter and not something to be engaged in lightly.

as opposed to carney who's equivalent punishment is not playing footy.

and yes. like I said it has nothing to do with whether they are in fact guilty or innocent - that is determined later, at which point a final decision is made.

 

[skeepe]

f**k.

 

[Eels Dude]

ok this is the weirdest argument ever to be having on a league forum. but whatever, I've taken the bait now. but yes it is analagous.

I didn't say it's like a real court case. I said it's the same principle.

courts remand defendants they believe are dangerous or at risk of running. the comparable danger in this situation is a danger to the canberra club's reputation and the reputation of the game by keeping a (possibly) badly behaved player on.

the bail comparison is - in contrast - fairly irrelevant. it exists because we deem the deprivation of liberty to be a supremely serious matter and not something to be engaged in lightly.

as opposed to carney who's equivalent punishment is not playing footy.

and yes. like I said it has nothing to do with whether they are in fact guilty or innocent - that is determined later, at which point a final decision is made.

Ok... That's where i'm confused. In regards to the same principle you mentioned.

Are you comparing a police investigation in general, in regards to the police investigation against Todd Carney?

Or are you comparing a police investigation in general in regards the way the the Canberra Raiders should conduct their own internal investigation into this matter?

Or something else completely?

If you can do that i'll respond with my own argument, i'm just currently confused with the point you are trying to make.

 

[Alex28]

Canberra doesn't have the balls to sack Carney. They proved that last year. He'll get yet another final warning and he'll do something equally as dumb next year and we'll see the whole saga again...

Did Julian O'Neill get the sack for taking a piss at Jupiters all those years ago?

 

[sass]

I didn't mean to imply they should stand him down till police investigations finish ... I just meant I have no problem with canberra standing him down until they make their decision on what to do with him (ie using the same principle we use in criminal law)

as in canberra standing him down till canberra makes a decision is the same principle we use in criminal law. and if it's good enough to use on crims then I don't see why it can't be used on douchebag carney here.

 

[Raudonikis]

maybe he was standing next to him and the guy said sh*t i got tinea,so carney goes well ill tell ya what fixes that,piss on it....But i think itd be great if he gets sacked then parra can hire him to replace tim smith..thatd be cool with me.

 

[Eels Dude]

as in canberra standing him down till canberra makes a decision is the same principle we use in criminal law. and if it's good enough to use on crims then I don't see why it can't be used on douchebag carney here.

The way an employer treats their employees is completely different in regards to criminal law treats an alledged criminal... If you disagree, please explain.

 

[Raudonikis]

look for all anyone knows some loudmouth was standing next to hi,hes pissed,turns round to answerhim him and splashes his boots big friggen deal!

 

[Snoz]

NRL just deregister him so no other club can pick him up - give him 2 year ban

 

[sass]

The way an employer treats their employees is completely different in regards to criminal law treats an alledged criminal... If you disagree, please explain.

well the way I see it ... if you're using one principle where what's at stake is someone's liberty (and what's more important than that??) and you think it's ok. then how can u object to using the same principle when the question of what's at stake is playing footy? you know?

also it's the same system that's used when teachers or police officers are accused of misconduct, so yeah, I think it's totally reasonable.

 

[Walt Flanigan]

Not gonna freak out just yet, I'll wait until it unfolds.

If the allegations are true though then Carney will have to go and the NRL should do the right thing and de-register him.

A real kick in the nuts for Canberra fans. We almost saw the light at the end of the tunnel.

 

[Bobby DIGital]

Canberra doesn't have the balls to sack Carney. They proved that last year. He'll get yet another final warning and he'll do something equally as dumb next year and we'll see the whole saga again...

Did Julian O'Neill get the sack for taking a piss at Jupiters all those years ago?

Shaun Berrigan got away with the same thing at the casino...cos Mick Crocker was outside fighting with the cops at the time, so no one noticed Berrigan took a slash inside. It's the reason he wasn't in the 2004 origin series. It was covered up. My boy Weasel told me.

 

[stuke]

For pissing on a patron Carneys manager will claim he is bi-polar and has an incontinence problem to boot..that about covers his arse for most of the issues!

if he is incontinent i truly hope he does cover his arse! ;-)

 

[Eels Dude]

well the way I see it ... if you're using one principle where what's at stake is someone's liberty (and what's more important than that??) and you think it's ok. then how can u object to using the same principle when the question of what's at stake is playing footy? you know?

also it's the same system that's used when teachers or police officers are accused of misconduct, so yeah, I think it's totally reasonable.

I'm still confused.


You're being too too metaphorical. If you can explain statements I've made in regards to the comments you've made, and do so in quotes i've made, then i'll happily respond.

I'm still not sure what you're trying to say.. I dont mean to be offensive but you're writing posts like you're writing a university essay without explaining your point. Are you actually trying to prove a point or just sound smart for the sake of it?