Should Brett Stewart be stood down ?

[Paullyboy]

Maybe not but if he's done nothing wrong...

My personal assumption on this is that he wouldn't have done anything wrong, but even if I'm correct it would be quite easy for him to say something incorrect or be interpreted incorrectly in any of his statements so it's safest to say nothing.

 

[Timmah]

I.e. wait for lawyers to turn his story into legalese so it cannot be construed that he did something wrong (assuming his innocence for this example of course)...?

 

[warren]

You're still assuming an awful lot not in evidence by saying that... :?

how am i?

theyre both accused of a criminal offence

 

[Timmah]

No, one has been charged, the other has been questioned.

Two entirely different scenarios involving two entirely different alleged crimes.

 

[warren]

No, one has been charged, the other has been questioned.

Two entirely different scenarios involving two entirely different alleged crimes.

ohhh right - because i thought imasharkie meant that stewart through a bottle at the young girls face

 

[Timmah]

:lol: You're a goose mate.

 

[broncos70]

Why should the nrl force manly to stand him down when they didnt do the same when something similar happened at the broncos, and with laffranchi and crocket?

maybe they realised they should've done the same thing back then and want to make a real stand against rubbish like that this year, and what better way to do it..

so you guys dont want him stood down, but then again you think the broncos handled things wrong when u wanna handle them the same way?

i think the broncos played it right, and there wasnt enough evidence of anything to charge them for that case, and they all turned out to be innocent, so why would you stand them down if they havn't been charged?

so maybe gallop knows something that we dont??maybe stewart has talked to him about the story and he has found him in the wrong?

SIMPLE: broncos were never charged and were never stood down because of it..therefore stand stewart down if he's charged and sack him if he's guilty when the case is dismissed.

wouldnt he be jailed for that anyway if he was found guilty? did they say it was assault or sexual assault because i had heard assault?

 

[warren]

:lol: You're a goose mate.

because im not pedantic and can see some similarities between the two?

aaaanyway - im glad he's allowed to play

 

[Timmah]

Manly boss rejects booze ban, clears Stewart to play
9/03/2009 10:50:00 AM. | Erin Maher & Laura Tunstal

Brett Stewart will be considered for selection for Manly's opening game of the 2009 NRL season if no charges are laid in the meantime.

Police are continuing their investigations, analysing DNA samples taken from Stewart and the 17-year-old girl he's accused of attacking.

The case has promoted calls for an alcohol ban throughout the season.

Manly Chief Grant Mayer says he's not convinced that's the way to go.

“We’ve been thinking about it for 48 hours now and while it sounds a very strong measure, and I can understand why people are supporting it, I think the great difficulty, at the moment, is to enforce it,” he told a media conference in Narrabeen this morning.

“I still believe there is some individual responsibility on all players with regard to how they drink.

“It’s about drinking responsibly.”

http://livenews.com.au/Articles/200...ts_calls_for_booze_ban_clears_Stewart_to_play

Don't forget to link any posted articles ;-)

 

[Timmah]

because im not pedantic and can see some similarities between the two?

aaaanyway - im glad he's allowed to play

It's not about being pedantic - Bird's case is an allegation of physical assault, an entirely different alleged crime to that of Stewart's - sexual assault.

 

[MANLYMAGIC08]

ok cool will do next time

 

[Godz Illa]

theyre still not much different

Plenty of difference between an alleged sexual assault and an alleged violent physical assault. The former has several shades of grey, and while it may not be PC it is nonetheless true that quite often there is a gold digger element. It's why a good percentage of these cases end in dismissals or acquittals.

A punch (or glass) to the face is not so grey.

Also: Stewart is a cleanskin with a long line of character witnesses within in his own club. Bird was a repeat offender with a long rap sheet held by his club.

 

[fred92]

Yea but Brisbane are hypocrites of the highest order. Lets now follow their lead shall we.

I dont believe the NRL would sit on their hands on this, Gallop is a lawyer and id assume would have wanted to know the circumstances and the likelyhood of this thing going bad. It turns out that his attitude towards stewart both yesterday and today has to be to distance himself greatly from what has happened. Now you can believe that someone is innocent until proven guilty all you like, but as a person that needs to make a decision on this, which Gallop is, then you need to make a decision based on what has been reported as the case.

You dont think David Gallop, with his contacts wouldnt know EXACTLY what was reported to the police? offcourse he does, which is why he has hung stewart out to dry. Justice is blind in the legal system, nobody ever said it needs to be everywhere else, and it almost never is.

 

[warren]

I understand the difference between the two incidents (that was my stewart glassing comment a few posts ago) - but the issue might as well be the same for the club. two are up for criminal charges. to sack or not to sack comes into play, club and game image, pressure from sponsors (watmough can take care of that i guess), so manly now knows what the sharks are going through (now it goes all the way back to imasharkies comment).

also it doesnt matter that stewart was a cleanskin, he certainly isnt now. mud sticks

 

[Godz Illa]

I understand the difference between the two incidents (that was my stewart glassing comment a few posts ago) - but the issue might as well be the same for the club.

There is no logic linking the two parts of this sentence. Why should two different incidents be treated the same? Ultimately it is up to the club and both Manly and Cronulla are within their rights to treat each individual case on it's own merits as they see fit.

 

[Shorty]

Haven't read all of this thread,can't be bothered this morning.
But I think he should,solely because he was the face of the latest NRL ad campaign.

Obviously he's innocent until proven guilty but he's already involved in a sex scandal and it's not a good look.

 

[fred92]

Agree with your statements IAFETA. Media reports both sisters and mother witnessed assault. This accusation is serious, moreso than Stewart missing a game of footy. we`re all aware of police forwarding matter from under Stewarts fingernails for forensic examination which means the girls person was injured in some form. I believe Gallop will stand him down.

 

[Shorty]

Unfortunately he has to, not beccause he's the main person being alleged of this, but because it would not be a good thing for his state of mind to have this whirling around his head and trying to play footy. While the footy side would be a welcome distraction he needs to be given space from everything until it is sorted properly and the true story, if it ever comes to light is deal with.

Innocent until guilty crap is also a tiresome excuse for mind and I have the opinion that, if players are dumb enough to let themselves be sucked in by these woman, then sadly for them they have to pay the pirce.

These woman are disgusting, disappointing pieces of sh*t that should ripped into a thousand pieces for using themselves like a bunch of stupid bimbos just so they can rake a bit of attention or money and gain some cut little reputation.

And don't give me the crap they they 'never meant' to do it because I highly doubt all the woman that have been involved inthese situations with foty players never know what they are doing because they obviously know what they are getting into when 'playing cutie' with a footy player that you recognize

God you really are a poor excuse for a woman.

 

[franklin2323]

Yes. Not for the allegations. He and Watmough should be stood for being so drunk at an offical function. Ala Hayne last year. I would say the same if it was a panther player also

 

[Eels Dude]

Plenty of difference between an alleged sexual assault and an alleged violent physical assault. The former has several shades of grey, and while it may not be PC it is nonetheless true that quite often there is a gold digger element. It's why a good percentage of these cases end in dismissals or acquittals.

A punch (or glass) to the face is not so grey.

Also: Stewart is a cleanskin with a long line of character witnesses within in his own club. Bird was a repeat offender with a long rap sheet held by his club.

At the same time the alledged victim in the case of Greg Bird is disputing the claims alledged by police prosecutors and has since day one. Now that is a very big grey area in the prosecution's attempts to convince a judge or jury that Bird is guilty.

It's almost a bit contradictory this legal system of ours. In one case, an alledged victim makes a complaint and the police have to investigate it for days and weeks or longer to make a charge. In another case, the police can simply charge a person on arrival based on evidence, even if the alledged victim denies thats what happened.