Stewart banned till rnd 5

[Jatz Crackers]

:lol:

Yeah, that's what police charged him with ...

The only charge that can be made at this stage is your talking out of your a*se and cant possibly know that facts.

 

[HevyDevy]

I'm pretty sure only one person is responsible for the predicament Brett Stewart finds himself here: Brett Stewart.

Like everyone on here, I hope he is innocent and we can all move on, but in the meantime he has been charged, the NRL has taken strong and correct action and time will tell what the future brings.

 

[Eels Dude]

at the same time David Gallop should tender his resignation for showing a complete set of double standards in regards to laffranchi and crockett.

That's the most ingorant thing I've ever heard. It's obvious that the NRL is saying "enough is enough" and cracking down on player behaviour. If the charges against those two players you mentioned occured last week then you might have a valid point, but it was a couple of years ago now and the NRL cannot turn back the clock. Hardy a double standard.

 

[HevyDevy]

The only charge that can be made at this stage is your talking out of your a*se and cant possibly know that facts.

No no, the police definitely charged him.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

It is fact.

:lol:

I guess that was the last bastion of the stupid.

 

[HevyDevy]

Are you saying that he hasn't brought the game into disrepute?

Perhaps you believe this whole thing is good for the game?

 

[Timmah]

and banning someone becuase they are intoxicated is ridiculous.

FFS , if you do that you would have to suspend scores of players every weekend.

His intoxication occured at an official club function.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Are you saying that he hasn't brought the game into disrepute?

Perhaps you believe this whole thing is good for the game?

No. I am simply waiting for the facts to be presented. What you say isnt fact despite what you may believe.

 

[milchcow]

His intoxication occured at an official club function.

From the NRL website

“Every person bound by this Code shall, whether or not he is attending an official function ... conduct himself at all times in public in a sober, courteous and professional manner"

 

[HevyDevy]

Looks pretty factual to me - the many, many people decrying the scenario suggests to me that yes, he has brought the game into disrepute.

Let's hope that's all he has done.

 

[Bluebags1908]

The media are having a field day, and this is the problem. The bottom line is this:

a) I want justice served - if Stewart is guilty then throw the book at him; if he is not guilty then I hope he is let off.

b) Politicians need to introduce a law to suppress the media in reporting and identifying anyone (footballers or not) that are *allegedly* accused of whatever. I mean, Stewart's face and image was splashed across the papers and TV even BEFORE he was charged. Where is the justice in this if he is possibly innocent? And quite frankly, I don’t think the poor girl wants this case dragged through the media either - it's not helping Brett Stewart but it sure as hell isn't helping her too. All the girl wants is the case to be heard and - in her ** alleged ** opinion - justice served. She doesn't want or care about the media circus - she just wants her day in court.

I believe there are laws in the UK preventing the media identifying the ** allegedly ** accused. Sure, word WILL still get around via the bush telegraph that Stewart is in trouble - but at least it won't make it to the papers, radio, and TV. And this law will prevent Radio taking talkback callers that may have heard 'news'.

c) At the very least the law should be in place until such time as a person is charged. But I believe that the laws should go further in that only if and when he is found guilty THEN the media can have their field day. If Brett Stewart is innocent then if I were him I would sue the media for defamation of character. If he is found innocent unfortunately the mud sticks. This case may result in him losing future income from sponsors/endorsements - all because of having his character 'defamed' in the media (presuming he is in fact innocent).

With this law in place none of us will be talking about it on these forums.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Thats a lot of unprofessional hack journos arriving at Centrelink some time soon.

 

[HevyDevy]

The media are having a field day, and this is the problem. The bottom line is this:

a) I want justice served - if Stewart is guilty then throw the book at him; if he is not guilty then I hope he is let off.

b) Politicians need to introduce a law to suppress the media in reporting and identifying anyone (footballers or not) that are *allegedly* accused of whatever. I mean, Stewart's face and image was splashed across the papers and TV even BEFORE he was charged. Where is the justice in this if he is possibly innocent? And quite frankly, I don’t think the poor girl wants this case dragged through the media either - it's not helping Brett Stewart but it sure as hell isn't helping her too. All the girl wants is the case to be heard and - in her ** alleged ** opinion - justice served. She doesn't want or care about the media circus - she just wants her day in court.

I believe there are laws in the UK preventing the media identifying the ** allegedly ** accused. Sure, word WILL still get around via the bush telegraph that Stewart is in trouble - but at least it won't make it to the papers, radio, and TV. And this law will prevent Radio taking talkback callers that may have heard 'news'.

c) At the very least the law should be in place until such time as a person is charged. But I believe that the laws should go further in that only if and when he is found guilty THEN the media can have their field day. If Brett Stewart is innocent then if I were him I would sue the media for defamation of character. If he is found innocent unfortunately the mud sticks. This case may result in him losing future income from sponsors/endorsements - all because of having his character 'defamed' in the media (presuming he is in fact innocent).

With this law in place none of us will be talking about it on these forums.

The media hasn't defamed him at all mate.

Nobody, other than the girl and her father, has said that Stewart is guilty.

The media is merely reporting that Stewart has been accused of and charged with sexual assault. That is fact.

If anyone had actually said that he was guilty of sexual assault then yes, they could sue if he is found to be innocent.

 

[gong_eagle]

HUh ?? Whats this one about ?

Hadley's allegation as told to Chris Smith just after 12 today is that there is someone that is connected to Manly is banned from entering the players sheds as the person is known to take cocaine (he said he has known this for 12 months)

 

[Pierced Soul]

i dont know if it was the right decision, part of me thin ks if you're charged with a serious crime you should be stood down automatially, part of me thinks 'innocent till proven guilty' (unless it's bird).

if the NRL came out and said 'we;ve had enough, starting with stewart we'll ban plaeyrs for heavy intoxication in a public setting" i have no probs. they havent said this and so it seeems to me gallop will use whatever public baromoter he uses to randomly base his decisions.

we all know there will be intoxicated players throughout the season and i will bet that they dont all get 4 game suspensions from the NRL for it

and timmah, having a player put into PL by the dogs for 1 week is not the same as being banned by the nrl for 4 games

 

[Timmah]

No. I am simply waiting for the facts to be presented. What you say isnt fact despite what you may believe.

Are you f**king dense?

It is fact he consumed alcohol at the function and it is fact he was intoxicated.

 

[squiddy]

i dont know if it was the right decision, part of me thin ks if you're charged with a serious crime you should be stood down automatially, part of me thinks 'innocent till proven guilty' (unless it's bird).

Why Bird ? apart from him being a class 1 DH - whats the difference ? In all likelihood his charges are going to be dropped altogether .

Sharks acted responsibly with that case , and it did affect there semi's performance .

I for one would have loved Bird being given the same innocent until proven guilty trip - but the club took the correct action , as has the NRL today

 

[Gaba]

What legal grounds to the NRL have for deciding that a player with no criminal conviction is not allowed to play?

An employee of the nrl stewart has been charged with a offense and brought the nrl and game into distrepute

 

[Timmah]

Into distribute :lol: Well said gaba :sarcasm:

What legal grounds to the NRL have for deciding that a player with no criminal conviction is not allowed to play?

1. He has been charged with a serious crime - sexual assault. That alone is enough to command a re-think of "should he play"?

2. He consumed excessive amounts of alcohol at the club's season launch last weekened, which is supposed to have led to the alleged incident. And yes, Watmough should be stood down too.

3. He breached the NRL code of conduct, which is not a document that has simply been made up to single out Stewart.

 

[Bluebags1908]

The media hasn't defamed him at all mate.

Nobody, other than the girl and her father, has said that Stewart is guilty.

The media is merely reporting that Stewart has been accused of and charged with sexual assault. That is fact.

If anyone had actually said that he was guilty of sexual assault then yes, they could sue if he is found to be innocent.

OK fair enough, the point I was trying to make is that the mud sticks. His reputation is in tatters. This incident could result in him being deprived of sponsorship income in future.There should be laws in place to supress naming individuals until proven guilty.

Me, you and Joe Bloggs from across the road should have no knowledge of this case via reading about it in the papers.