Rape allegation

[St Tangles]

Remember Jack De Belin. Don't jump to conclusions.

You will wake up the imbeciles with this comment

 

[Iamback]

What are we remembering? That prosecutors dropped the case after no verdict was returned a second time?

So two juries essentially were split on whether he was guilty or not. Not exactly the vindication you'd expect when saying "Don't jump to conclusions".

Yes but wasn't found guilty

Certainly not anything to miss 2 years of footy for.

So this way is much better.

Say he is named, There will be people saying he is guilty BEFORE his day in court.

Let it play out and if it goes to court then name them

 

[Marshall_magic]

Allegations do suggest he's a f#cker though.

Literally

 

[Frailty]

Yes but wasn't found guilty

Certainly not anything to miss 2 years of footy for.

So this way is much better.

Say he is named, There will be people saying he is guilty BEFORE his day in court.

Let it play out and if it goes to court then name them

The potential rape of a women is not something to miss 2 years of footy?

Just a reminder - he wasn't stood down until he was charged. Whilst he was stood down, he was continued to be paid and provided support by the club.
He wasn't named until he was charged (and thus going to court).

 

[mave]

The potential rape of a women is not something to miss 2 years of footy?

Brett Stewart says hello.

 

[Iamback]

The potential rape of a women is not something to miss 2 years of footy?

Just a reminder - he wasn't stood down until he was charged. Whilst he was stood down, he was continued to be paid and provided support by the club.
He wasn't named until he was charged (and thus going to court).

Innocent until proven guilty is the law still in this country?

 

[Bazal]

Innocent until proven guilty is the law still in this country?

Irrelevant to the NRL standing down a player on trial for rape

 

[Maximus]

I'm not sure the innocent player who has been stood down would agree....

But as you say, it's a small price to pay.....as long as you are not the one paying it.

De Belin didn't agree, challenged it and was told too bad by the courts.

 

[mave]

De Belin didn't agree, challenged it and was told too bad by the courts.

Relevance?

I'm not arguing about the legality of the NRL stand down rule...

 

[Iamback]

Irrelevant to the NRL standing down a player on trial for rape

They are being stood down because it is a bad look for the game.

You don't think that presumes the player is guilty?

 

[Iamback]

I'm not sure the innocent player who has been stood down would agree....

But as you say, it's a small price to pay.....as long as you are not the one paying it.

Tom Burgess' offence was March 2022.

He got to court and found not guilty Oct last year.

Had he of been stood down that time, His career would of been ended early.

Tristan Sailor's contract expired whilist stood down. He is now bumming around in QCup.

So while Hayne is a reason for the rule. There are more against that rule

 

[Bazal]

They are being stood down because it is a bad look for the game.

You don't think that presumes the player is guilty?

They aren't a court, so it's irrelevant..

They are entitled to protect their brand. Blows my mind people still don't get this.

 

[mave]

They are being stood down because it is a bad look for the game.

You don't think that presumes the player is guilty?

The NRL can do as they please.

That doesn't negate the fact that any innocent or "not guilty" player will pay a price while things play out.

Some people think it's worth it.....I'm not sure I agree with that.

 

[Chins get the wins]

Unlike De Bellend.

This merkin @Mr. Shaman

 

[Sphagnum]

 

[Iamback]

The NRL can do as they please.

That doesn't negate the fact that any innocent or "not guilty" player will pay a price while things play out.

Some people think it's worth it.....I'm not sure I agree with that.

Of course they can

FTR I'd have no issue with anyone convicted of any crime not playing again BUT the process needs to play out

 

[Iamback]

They aren't a court, so it's irrelevant..

They are entitled to protect their brand. Blows my mind people still don't get this.

So why 11 years then?

Wakeham was arrested at training. Yet as the charge is 5 years doesn't come under that rule.

Why also can people charged who may be innocent can't play BUT players who are convicted of crimes can play?

That is why protecting the brand is BS, either zero tolerance or let the process play out

 

[MugaB]

De Belin didn't agree, challenged it and was told too bad by the courts.

 

[Bazal]

So why 11 years then?

Because that fits the level the NRL has decided is an unacceptable risk to it's own brand.

Are you this arced up when a bloke gets sacked for calling his employer useless and incompetent on Facebook?

 

[King hit]

Because that fits the level the NRL has decided is an unacceptable risk to it's own brand.

Are you this arced up when a bloke gets sacked for calling his employer useless and incompetent on Facebook?

Someone at my work was actually fired for doing that. Just wasn’t about the boss it was about the place in general