Now we are being sued
Now we are being sued boys and girls we need to not be emotional but think like a blood sucking lawyer.
1) Did Belly use names no. (But thanks to the media everyone now knows whom it was)
2) Has there been a precedent set as to the charging of such tackles. Yes a inconsistent one.
??????
3) What was said and who Gaines. answer that one yourself
4) Was the NRL reactionary. The only answer you could come up with will be yes based on histroy. (in regards to this tackle type).
I will not go on any longer but to say the law is governed by judging inconsistencies and precedents. And if one of the mainly players were in the same situation I would feel the same way. It is unfair for any player to be singled out as an example when the governing body can not get it right. The system is flawed admit it and then fix it but don't single out some and forget the others this is not lawful.
1) Did Belly use names no. (But thanks to the media everyone now knows whom it was)
2) Has there been a precedent set as to the charging of such tackles. Yes a inconsistent one.
??????3) What was said and who Gaines. answer that one yourself
4) Was the NRL reactionary. The only answer you could come up with will be yes based on histroy. (in regards to this tackle type).
I will not go on any longer but to say the law is governed by judging inconsistencies and precedents. And if one of the mainly players were in the same situation I would feel the same way. It is unfair for any player to be singled out as an example when the governing body can not get it right. The system is flawed admit it and then fix it but don't single out some and forget the others this is not lawful.
-
CaptainKlutz
- Thunderstorm
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:06 pm
- Location: Sitting at the Port of the bay, wasting time.
Woods is a Sydney district court Judge.think like a blood sucking lawyer.
The charge seems to be only over Belamy's betting odds and why that was so. I can't see how that can't be adequatly defended.
If a simple apology is needed to stop the legal process then it'd be hard to claim that there was much damage caused then.
Seems more bluff than substance.
[b]Making movies, signing songs and fight'n round the world.[/b]
Dose chess dip Err?
Dose chess dip Err?
The defamation will result from Bellamy's accusation that the betting agencies had prior knowledge of the outcome and that they (the judiciary) had somehow leaked the information to those agencies.
Whilst defamation in this case is not clear cut there is certainly enough to suggest that an action by the judiciary panel would be warranted. You simply cannot make implications of some underhand activity having taken place without being able to substantiate it.
Blind Freddy new that Smith was guilty, even the majority of the users here accepted that before the judgment was known but I am fairly certain that no here actually knew what the result would be.
The matter could have been resolved simply & effectively by an apology, yet for reasons that Waldron will not speak about it has not happended. Come on Brian, you love to talk and mouth off, explain to the supporters why a threat of leagal action, which will have to be paid by News Limited if successful still hangs like a dark cloud.
Whilst defamation in this case is not clear cut there is certainly enough to suggest that an action by the judiciary panel would be warranted. You simply cannot make implications of some underhand activity having taken place without being able to substantiate it.
Blind Freddy new that Smith was guilty, even the majority of the users here accepted that before the judgment was known but I am fairly certain that no here actually knew what the result would be.
The matter could have been resolved simply & effectively by an apology, yet for reasons that Waldron will not speak about it has not happended. Come on Brian, you love to talk and mouth off, explain to the supporters why a threat of leagal action, which will have to be paid by News Limited if successful still hangs like a dark cloud.
If you listened or read any of Waldron's comments in the last couple of days then you would know that he has said he won't be making further comment on the matter until after the grand final.peter wrote:The matter could have been resolved simply & effectively by an apology, yet for reasons that Waldron will not speak about it has not happended. Come on Brian, you love to talk and mouth off, explain to the supporters why a threat of leagal action, which will have to be paid by News Limited if successful still hangs like a dark cloud.
Perhaps he wishes to concentrate on the GF, that's what you previously wanted him to do, now you've obviously changed your mind.
OK, so going from that - Did Craig or Brian actually say, 'The judiciary panel told the bookies'? I might be wrong (would need to watch the interview again) but I think what they said (or inferred) was only 'we think the bookies knew'.peter wrote: The defamation will result from Bellamy's accusation that the betting agencies had prior knowledge of the outcome and that they (the judiciary) had somehow leaked the information to those agencies.
-
CaptainKlutz
- Thunderstorm
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:06 pm
- Location: Sitting at the Port of the bay, wasting time.
It was Craig that talked about the Betting.Tempest wrote:OK, so going from that - Did Craig or Brian actually say, 'The judiciary panel told the bookies'? I might be wrong (would need to watch the interview again) but I think what they said (or inferred) was only 'we think the bookies knew'.peter wrote: The defamation will result from Bellamy's accusation that the betting agencies had prior knowledge of the outcome and that they (the judiciary) had somehow leaked the information to those agencies.
peter the TOSSPOT has no idea.
[b]Making movies, signing songs and fight'n round the world.[/b]
Dose chess dip Err?
Dose chess dip Err?
I know. But since they're both being named in the so-called suit I thought I'd mention both.CaptainKlutz wrote:It was Craig that talked about the Betting.Tempest wrote: OK, so going from that - Did Craig or Brian actually say, 'The judiciary panel told the bookies'? I might be wrong (would need to watch the interview again) but I think what they said (or inferred) was only 'we think the bookies knew'.
peter the TOSSPOT has no idea.
Melbourne's off-field dramas ahead of Sunday's NRL grand final continued today as members of the league's judiciary panel decided to begin legal action against Storm coach Craig Bellamy and chief executive Brian Waldron.
The court action comes in the wake of the Melbourne pair appearing to question the panel's integrity over the suspension of captain Cameron Smith for a grapple tackle.
NRL boss David Gallop met with judiciary chairman Greg Woods and other members of the panel today.
"They are not satisfied with the state of play and have indicated they wish to commence legal action against Craig Bellamy and Brian Waldron," Gallop said in a statement.
"The NRL has made its position clear by imposing a record fine but the individuals feel they have no alternative but to commence action."
The league slapped the Storm with a $50,000 fine after Bellamy appeared to suggest that bookmakers had received information about the likelihood of Smith being suspended.
Judiciary panel member Darrell Williams threatened legal action if no apology was forthcoming - the former Manly centre claiming his reputation had been tarnished by Bellamy's comments.
But yesterday Bellamy said he had no regrets over his comments and refused to apologise for them.
AAP
The court action comes in the wake of the Melbourne pair appearing to question the panel's integrity over the suspension of captain Cameron Smith for a grapple tackle.
NRL boss David Gallop met with judiciary chairman Greg Woods and other members of the panel today.
"They are not satisfied with the state of play and have indicated they wish to commence legal action against Craig Bellamy and Brian Waldron," Gallop said in a statement.
"The NRL has made its position clear by imposing a record fine but the individuals feel they have no alternative but to commence action."
The league slapped the Storm with a $50,000 fine after Bellamy appeared to suggest that bookmakers had received information about the likelihood of Smith being suspended.
Judiciary panel member Darrell Williams threatened legal action if no apology was forthcoming - the former Manly centre claiming his reputation had been tarnished by Bellamy's comments.
But yesterday Bellamy said he had no regrets over his comments and refused to apologise for them.
AAP
-
CaptainKlutz
- Thunderstorm
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:06 pm
- Location: Sitting at the Port of the bay, wasting time.
FYI
http://abc.com.au/news/stories/2008/10/02/2380295.htm
http://abc.com.au/news/stories/2008/10/02/2380295.htm
Storm sued over Smith comments
Craig Bellamy is being sued for comments be made concerning the judiciary.
Melbourne's grand final build-up is in tatters, with two NRL judiciary members revealing they will sue the club over comments concerning the Cam Smith case.
Coach Craig Bellamy and chief executive Brian Waldron criticised the NRL judiciary and the media for their treatment of Smith, who is banned from Sunday's grand final because of a grapple tackle.
NRL chief executive David Gallop has called on the Storm to apologise for the criticism of the judiciary but the club has steadfastly refused to do so.
Judiciary members Royce Ayliffe and Darrell Williams have now commenced legal action against the club, saying their integrity has been unfairly questioned.
"A genuine apology could have sufficed," Mr Williams said.
"Unfortunately it just appears that the club have dug their heels in.
"They may or may not be hiding behind the fact that they're preparing for a grand final, but this wouldn't have been an issue in the first instance if they hadn't gone down this road."
The NRL has already fined the Storm $50,000 for the comments but Mr Gallop says Mr Ayliffe and Mr Williams are not satisfied.
"They had an expectation that there would be an apology," Mr Gallop said.
"That's not been forthcoming. They're not happy with that and have indicated they wish to commence legal proceedings against Craig Bellamy and Brian Waldron."
Mr Gallop said the proceedings were bad timing, taking away from the build-up to Sunday's clash between the Storm and Manly.
"Very much so. I think there was an opportunity to put this to bed today and that opportunity wasn't taken," Mr Gallop said.
"I don't quite understand the reasoning behind that."
Mr Gallop said he has spoken to Mr Waldron about making an apology but the Storm was standing by its original position.
"I think it's reasonable of the panel to accept an apology before the grand final, while the focus is still on the issue," he said.
"The sooner that apology's given, the better."
Mr Gallop is a lawyer but said he would not comment on whether or not Mr Ayliffe and Mr Williams had a case.
"It's not my place to give legal advice but I think we all know they were serious allegations," he said.
[b]Making movies, signing songs and fight'n round the world.[/b]
Dose chess dip Err?
Dose chess dip Err?
Gee I wonder what idiot gave them that expectation?CaptainKlutz wrote:The NRL has already fined the Storm $50,000 for the comments but Mr Gallop says Mr Ayliffe and Mr Williams are not satisfied.
"They had an expectation that there would be an apology," Mr Gallop said.
Mr Gallop said he has spoken to Mr Waldron about making an apology but the Storm was standing by its original position.
Brian said fix it or we will maybe he meant it. Even if it means going to court to show how inconsistent the system is.
This will not just benefit Storm but every club.
Most of the commentators are saying the system is flawed just maybe they might get an apology if they (NRL) state they are intentding review the system they have implace.
Some people wont move unless it gets uncomfortable.
Brian said fix it or we will maybe he meant it. Even if it means going to court to show how inconsistent the system is.
This will not just benefit Storm but every club.
Most of the commentators are saying the system is flawed just maybe they might get an apology if they (NRL) state they are intentding review the system they have implace.
Some people wont move unless it gets uncomfortable.
Is Waldron a bigger fool than what he has already proved. This action is not about the inconsistencies of the judiciary but rather the inference that the judiciary members involved themselves in some form of corrupt behaviour.
For gods sake take your blinkers off and look at the facts as they stand rather than try to defend the near indefensible.
Due to Waldron’s inaction our coach is now involved in a defamation action that will target him and his personal finances. Hardly the perect prepartion for the years biggest match.
For gods sake take your blinkers off and look at the facts as they stand rather than try to defend the near indefensible.
Due to Waldron’s inaction our coach is now involved in a defamation action that will target him and his personal finances. Hardly the perect prepartion for the years biggest match.
-
CaptainKlutz
- Thunderstorm
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2008 4:06 pm
- Location: Sitting at the Port of the bay, wasting time.
Fark yea..... Us against Them and peter. 
[b]Making movies, signing songs and fight'n round the world.[/b]
Dose chess dip Err?
Dose chess dip Err?