General Greg Bird charged

Northern_Union

Guest
Another article based on pure conjecture. It's no wonder it's called a media circus.

So both Bird and the bird want the AVO changed, so why is the court refusing to allow them to rekindle their relationship when they both want it?

The state was again interferring in private lives. If the two of them have kissed and made then the state should have no further involvment other than to prosecute him for the asalt, the state should have no involvment in telling who people can and can't see.
 

Skinny_Ravs82

Guest
Sharks star on the brink

By Margie McDonald
October 15, 2008
https://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,8659,24499341-23214,00.html


PRESSURE is building on Cronulla to cut loose Greg Bird after revelations on Tuesday that he was involved in two more public displays of alcohol-fuelled poor behaviour in the past week.
Bird reportedly exchanged abuse with several Cronulla supporters who were walking outside his Cronulla unit about a week ago.

In a separate incident several days later, Bird surprised a couple sitting in their car at traffic lights when he got into the back seat and demanded to be taken to a pizza shop.

The young man and his girlfriend recognised Bird and happily obliged, dropping him off at a takeaway.

Police were not involved in either incident, but they reveal more bizarre antics from a player who is supposedly trying to clear his name to save his football career.

Bird's year began with an alleged assault on a woman at a Cronulla nightclub in January. That case is before the courts.

Then he was arrested by Brisbane police for erratic and abusive behaviour outside a nightclub following a State of Origin match at Suncorp Stadium in June. No charges were laid.

Bird faces three charges, including reckless wounding, after his girlfriend, Katie Milligan, received a cut to her face and a fractured eye socket in an alleged altercation with the NSW and Australia player in their unit on August 24.

He is due to appear in court again on November 20 regarding that matter.

The Sharks suspended Bird, who is contracted until 2011, from all club activities in August, meaning he was unable to train or play in Cronulla's two finals matches.

Cronulla chief executive Tony Zappia said on Tuesday that the club's position had not changed.

"There's still a process of natural justice that should be allowed to run its course, in the short term," Zappia said.

"It's not a matter just for me. It's for the board as well and we've got board members away on leave at this time of year with the end of the footy season."
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
The state was again interferring in private lives. If the two of them have kissed and made then the state should have no further involvment other than to prosecute him for the asalt, the state should have no involvment in telling who people can and can't see.

It's ludicrous. It echoes of a nanny state. How dare the court rule over such things beyond its jurisdiction?

And why on earth would they refuse her application to have the AVO changed? Utter madness.

kingdamo said:
Nice JB!!!

Hehe, cheers mate! :thumb:
 

Iafeta_old

Guest
Another article based on pure conjecture. It's no wonder it's called a media circus.

So both Bird and the bird want the AVO changed, so why is the court refusing to allow them to rekindle their relationship when they both want it?

Because the courts are in charge of making remediations on wider things than emotional wants. They're charged with establishing utalitarian justice first and foremost, but also they are charged with ensuring the offender if proven guilty is punished to a point where justice is served or rehabilitation has been endured.

Firstly, there is a theory over here that Milligan has a bit of ching ching to make out of it if she reconciles with Bird. Bird's contract and potential contract values are lucrative. If this goes haywire, his career may effectively be over and she stands to gain little.

Secondly, none of us know what truly happened between Bird and Milligan. It is obviously the court's decision that they are unsure also and see an apparent risk for Milligan if she is allowed to reunite with Bird.

You really can't allow the AVO to be dropped until the process is through. There are some people who get a restraining order, but then feel emotional wont towards the person who has caused them grief because they realise the positive emotional loss in their loss, but may also be forgetting the harm they were under.

It seems to be fairly rational and normal court officiating to me.
 

Northern_Union

Guest
Perhapes your happy to be living under big brothers ever widening gaze,Iafeta, but some of us have had a guts full of the nani state.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
Because the courts are in charge of making remediations on wider things than emotional wants. They're charged with establishing utalitarian justice first and foremost, but also they are charged with ensuring the offender if proven guilty is punished to a point where justice is served or rehabilitation has been endured.

Firstly, there is a theory over here that Milligan has a bit of ching ching to make out of it if she reconciles with Bird. Bird's contract and potential contract values are lucrative. If this goes haywire, his career may effectively be over and she stands to gain little.

Secondly, none of us know what truly happened between Bird and Milligan. It is obviously the court's decision that they are unsure also and see an apparent risk for Milligan if she is allowed to reunite with Bird.

You really can't allow the AVO to be dropped until the process is through. There are some people who get a restraining order, but then feel emotional wont towards the person who has caused them grief because they realise the positive emotional loss in their loss, but may also be forgetting the harm they were under.

It seems to be fairly rational and normal court officiating to me.

I know that there are thousands of women worldwide who stay with physically abusive husbands. I don't understand why they do, but they do. So why is this different?

It doesn't matter what Bird did - what matters is that there are two grown adults who want to form/resume a relationship, and the courts are refusing to allow them. I agree that it might not be in their best interests, (hers especially - physically abusing a woman is close to the lowest of lows in my book), but isn't it an infringement on her rights as a grown adult to refuse her the choice to have a relationship with him?
 

Full Moon_old

Guest
Well that aside, should he be allowed to still play in the NRL?

He has done nothing wrong in terms of the NRL. Whether he is found guilty or innocent I don't think he should be de-registered.

BUT....

He could find himself in a spot of bother when it comes to NRL Clubs. Some clubs won't go near him because of this and some clubs won't go near him because they could possibly lose sponsors.

I remember what this clown did a few year ago. I cannot remember the player but it was when Bird was playing for the Bunnies and he kicked a Sharks player in the head in a moment of rage. I think he was rubbed out for 8-10 weeks. So the aggressiveness has always been there and my personal opinion is it is another low act from a low life.

Critise me if you must......
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
He has done nothing wrong in terms of the NRL. Whether he is found guilty or innocent I don't think he should be de-registered.

BUT....

He could find himself in a spot of bother when it comes to NRL Clubs. Some clubs won't go near him because of this and some clubs won't go near him because they could possibly lose sponsors.

I remember what this clown did a few year ago. I cannot remember the player but it was when Bird was playing for the Bunnies and he kicked a Sharks player in the head in a moment of rage. I think he was rubbed out for 8-10 weeks. So the aggressiveness has always been there and my personal opinion is it is another low act from a low life.

Critise me if you must......

We're all critics, mate. It comes with the (URL) territory. ;)

It's interesting how the Sharks have superceded the Sea Eagles as the perceived 'dirtiest team' in the last couple of years. That can almost exclusively come down to Paul Gallen and Greg Bird. Nigglers and sledgers.
 

Skinny_Ravs82

Guest
He has done nothing wrong in terms of the NRL. Whether he is found guilty or innocent I don't think he should be de-registered.

BUT....

He could find himself in a spot of bother when it comes to NRL Clubs. Some clubs won't go near him because of this and some clubs won't go near him because they could possibly lose sponsors.

I remember what this clown did a few year ago. I cannot remember the player but it was when Bird was playing for the Bunnies and he kicked a Sharks player in the head in a moment of rage. I think he was rubbed out for 8-10 weeks. So the aggressiveness has always been there and my personal opinion is it is another low act from a low life.

Critise me if you must......

Interesting, that's a really good point.
 

Skinny_Ravs82

Guest
On what basis? Because he is alleged to have hit his girlfriend? Or because he drinks?

And his apparent two recent incidents as well.

Well I'm not saying that's what I want yet (even though I have posted previously saying they should get rid of him.

But reading the article that the Sharks fans want him gone was just interesting and thought I'd see what you all thought is all.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
And his apparent two recent incidents as well.

Well I'm not saying that's what I want yet (even though I have posted previously saying they should get rid of him.

But reading the article that the Sharks fans want him gone was just interesting and thought I'd see what you all thought is all.

I can't see the NRL banning him from playing for an alleged incident that has yet to be proven, for drinking alcohol, and for going on holiday. That'd be pretty bizarre.

I can understand the Sharks considering his future, though.

So you do want him gone? Or you don't? The above quote seems to say both things...?
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
At the moment I don't think he should be playing at all.

Well, I think that makes sense because as far as I'm aware, he hasn't been selected in any World Cup teams.

On what basis do you think he should be banned from playing?
 

Northern_Union

Guest
He has done nothing wrong in terms of the NRL. Whether he is found guilty or innocent I don't think he should be de-registered.

BUT....

He could find himself in a spot of bother when it comes to NRL Clubs. Some clubs won't go near him because of this and some clubs won't go near him because they could possibly lose sponsors.

I remember what this clown did a few year ago. I cannot remember the player but it was when Bird was playing for the Bunnies and he kicked a Sharks player in the head in a moment of rage. I think he was rubbed out for 8-10 weeks. So the aggressiveness has always been there and my personal opinion is it is another low act from a low life.

Critise me if you must......

Tevita Latu.

Punched a woman at a service station after a night on the grog, after the woman was throwing food at him.

At the time both a Sharks first grader and New Zealand test player.

Before any conviction by the courts had his Sharks contract torn up and was de-registered with the NRL.

Why's Latu get the hard arse treatment and Bird gets the softly softly appraoch?

Ones a Kiwi internation, ones an Aussie international, Ones brown, ones white.

You work it out from there.
 

Full Moon_old

Guest
Tevita Latu.

Punched a woman at a service station after a night on the grog, after the woman was throwing food at him.

At the time both a Sharks first grader and New Zealand test player.

Before any conviction by the courts had his Sharks contract torn up and was de-registered with the NRL.

Why's Latu get the hard arse treatment and Bird gets the softly softly appraoch?

Ones a Kiwi internation, ones an Aussie international, Ones brown, ones white.

You work it out from there.

I see your point and I didn't realise that Latu was de-registered by the NRL.

If that the case then if Greg Bird is found guilty then the precedent has been set.

Was he deregistered over the incident or because he got a jail term?
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
I see your point and I didn't realise that Latu was de-registered by the NRL.

If that the case then if Greg Bird is found guilty then the precedent has been set.

Was he deregistered over the incident or because he got a jail term?

I'm fairly certain that Tevita wasn't jailed, but had to serve through community service.
 

Full Moon_old

Guest
I'm fairly certain that Tevita wasn't jailed, but had to serve through community service.

I think he may of been given a prison sentence. Served 1 week end of week-end jail and then his appeal went through for community service. I may be wrong but thats how I thought it unfolded