-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Tiger troy Taylor
- Thread starter ParisAmos
- Start date
jb03 said:
big difference between allegedly punching someone and raping someone.
this is why not all accused people are granted bail.
some are deemed enough a potential risk that they have to await trial in remand. This is not a black and white approach, but one used for each subject because in principle the right of "innocent until proven guilty" is the cornerstone of our justice system
On the Lovett situation, AW discussed this last night. Apparently they get the feeling the Saints may know enough about what happened that they are not happy regardless (sorry for the vague wording - AW were more direct but I personally think they may have slightly crossed the line)
Tiger74 said:
But you weren't arguing against the type or severity of the alleged crime. You were saying we should wait until the court process is completed before passing judgement and that the club shouldn't act until such time. Or does that rule only apply to Richmond. And it seems you have judged Lovett guilty after reading the Herald Sun (or in your case listening to AW who, with Mitchell, Hinch, Russell and Healy are obviously always right)
And who decrees what alleged crime is serious enough to warrant instant action. Attempted murder?, theft? Where does embezzlement fit it in? Or is white collar crime ok.
I.ll take the soft option every day of the week if the soft option is being innocent until proven guilty approach by the club.mb64 said:
jb03 said:
you really don't know anything about the justice system do you?
prosecution ask the court to reject the bail application, advising why (i.e. severity of the crime, flight risk, etc). The judge then decides based upon the initial information they have presented to them.
In the most part murder suspects tend to be put on remand, others can be more case by case (its up to the judge).
As for the Saints, personally I have no idea what Lovett's guilt is, and any decision the Saints make is their own.
Personally I am only in favour of suspending a player pre-trial if the charges are significant (i.e. murder, rape, arson, drugs, etc).
For a punch up, drink driving, and the like, I'm okay with them playing pending the case (even if their name is Shaw :hihi)
I feel another Krakouer thread coming on. A couple of thousand pages of ill-informed drivel and assumptions until the mods (rightly) just give up and close the thing.
Why is it so hard for us to see how the actual facts pan out in this instance? After all, all of the action being advocated for here is based on nothing more than guesswork about what happened.
Why is it so hard for us to see how the actual facts pan out in this instance? After all, all of the action being advocated for here is based on nothing more than guesswork about what happened.
Tiger74 said:
What are you waffling on about. We aren't talking about the justice system itself. That is a differnet discussion completely. You were simply saying we should let the justice system determine his guilt or otherwise and only then should the club act. But you then go on to excuse StKilda for doing the opposite because a) his alleged crime in your view is worse and/or b) because that last bastion of truth, 3AW 'get the feeling' that StKilda know enough to be 'not happy'.
I have a suggestion. Lets all wait until the 18th and wait and see what evidence is lead at the court case and what the people charged with dispensing justice decide what actually happened on the night in question.
hopper said:
That's why I'm looking forward to seeing what the verdict is but wouldn't be surprised to hear a typical out of court settlement.
Complete waste of time IMO.
jb03 said:
no, you asked who decides on giving bail - I explained
as for this case, my last paragraph explained it - I personally believe it comes down to the severity of the case, IN A SIMILAR way to that a judge decides on bail.
if the case is serious, and risk is not worth it - no bail (or in our case player suspended) as the risk of further offense is too high
if the case is not so, then they are allowed bail (or in our case they can continue to train/play) with punishment to await until after conviction
is it really that hard to understand, or is the caricature you play these days the over-riding thing behind your views?
hopper said:
This is nothing like the Krakouer thread. I haven't read any ill informed drivel on this thread. Only an argument that some are disappointed in the actions and predicament of one of their players and the other side wishing to excuse those actions or predicament until the justice system determines the players guilt or otherwise. I see no problem with either side of the argument and what action are you talking about that is being advocated?
<
Mediation
|
Beating North
>
