General Greg Bird charged

Northern_Union

Guest
He was de-registered before going to court. He returned from England for his court hearing and was given community service.
 

Iafeta_old

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.

I look at it another way. I live in a country where today it's 25 degrees, blue skies, it's half hour to the beach, beautiful women, a vibrant multicultural community and through what I can earn over here I get to travel the world.

I don't think Australia is that bad a place given the lifestyle I get to live here. I would find it hard to get a gut full of it.

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?

No, it's not an infringement on her rights. Put it another way, and yes, this is going to an extreme level, what if Charlie Manson and Patricia Krenwinkle (one of the Tate murderers) were romantically involved. Should they have the right to be together? Think about why that would be and forgetting the legal issues they have on their records, but Manson would undoubtedly be a physical threat to her. Of course the risk factor varies, but the courts are there to help rationalise security and wellbeing and overall justice. In their eyes, and probably via something that is unpublished in the newspapers where we are all second guessing from, there is something that says to them that Milligan is some danger and it would irresponsible of them to drop the AVO as Milligan's mind may be washed and she may not even realise the danger she is in.

It completely matters what Bird did and how the court sees the likelihood of reoccurence. Milligan's safety, physically, not her romantic life, is the primary interest of the courts. And so it should be.
 

Iafeta_old

Guest
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...?

The NRL will deregister him irrespective given his inability to keep to a story. The Sharks have had previous issues with him and given him the benefit of the doubt, but here he can't even keep his story together when he's fronting the CEO of the club.

He will end up with English SuperLeague.
 

a.c.e_old

Guest
This guys a compulsive liar! Everyone elses fault but him. He'll be off to the SL retirement fund.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
No, it's not an infringement on her rights. Put it another way, and yes, this is going to an extreme level, what if Charlie Manson and Patricia Krenwinkle (one of the Tate murderers) were romantically involved. Should they have the right to be together? Think about why that would be and forgetting the legal issues they have on their records, but Manson would undoubtedly be a physical threat to her. Of course the risk factor varies, but the courts are there to help rationalise security and wellbeing and overall justice. In their eyes, and probably via something that is unpublished in the newspapers where we are all second guessing from, there is something that says to them that Milligan is some danger and it would irresponsible of them to drop the AVO as Milligan's mind may be washed and she may not even realise the danger she is in.

It completely matters what Bird did and how the court sees the likelihood of reoccurence. Milligan's safety, physically, not her romantic life, is the primary interest of the courts. And so it should be.

I understand the AVO being in place to prevent Bird from approaching her. That makes perfect sense to me. If she's in danger, and doesn't want him anywhere near her, then it's the court's responsibility to keep him bay - just like a rsetraining order.

The bit that confuses me is that they are refusing the opposite as well. She isn't allowed to approach him. I'd get it if she was a minor, but she isn't (presumably). I accept that there is indubitably stuff at hand that isn't in the papers, which makes it impossible to make a fully-informed opinion on the matter, but I'm geniunely surprised that a court can essentially punish the victim of a crime when that victim presumably is of sound mind.

Surely there are other people, (be it Bird, Milligan, or friends and family of either of them), would have a closer insight to whether she's at risk than the courts? (Having said that, maybe they have spoken in court.)

The only other incident that reminds me of that is the shopkeeper who has been turned into a criminal for defending himself when attacked in his own shop - an act which has resulted in a general outcry by public via the media.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
The NRL will deregister him irrespective given his inability to keep to a story. The Sharks have had previous issues with him and given him the benefit of the doubt, but here he can't even keep his story together when he's fronting the CEO of the club.

He will end up with English SuperLeague.

What do you mean by a story? As in, he's said one thing and then another? I'm assuming this is to do with the court case? Doesn't that basically equate to lying? (I'm not sure if we're talking about lying under oath, which is a different prospect.)

So he should be de-registered, even if he didn't do it, because he lied? I wouldn't be able to name a single NRL player, (or person), that hasn't lied. Of course, if it's in court, that's different - but if he gets found not guilty, surely that has to stand? If, hypothetically, he was found not guilty, and he was de-registered by the NRL, could he sue?
 

Iafeta_old

Guest
What do you mean by a story? As in, he's said one thing and then another? I'm assuming this is to do with the court case? Doesn't that basically equate to lying? (I'm not sure if we're talking about lying under oath, which is a different prospect.)

So he should be de-registered, even if he didn't do it, because he lied? I wouldn't be able to name a single NRL player, (or person), that hasn't lied. Of course, if it's in court, that's different - but if he gets found not guilty, surely that has to stand? If, hypothetically, he was found not guilty, and he was de-registered by the NRL, could he sue?

He was required to submit a verbal report to his employer (the CEO of the Sharks), his story has changed multiple times. There is also massive inconsistencies in his story to the police.

IMO, yes he should. It is an offence to make an inaccurate statement to the police.

The NRL has the rights to register or deregister whichever player they like. I'm sure you'll find that's part of their collective bargaining agreement with the RLPA. This means that even if Bird is found innocent, or more technically not guilty, and perhaps that may be on a technicality or because Milligan is not coercive under oath, either way the NRL has in it's code and in it's bargaining agreement the right to deregister a player.
 

Iafeta_old

Guest
I understand the AVO being in place to prevent Bird from approaching her. That makes perfect sense to me. If she's in danger, and doesn't want him anywhere near her, then it's the court's responsibility to keep him bay - just like a rsetraining order.

The bit that confuses me is that they are refusing the opposite as well. She isn't allowed to approach him. I'd get it if she was a minor, but she isn't (presumably). I accept that there is indubitably stuff at hand that isn't in the papers, which makes it impossible to make a fully-informed opinion on the matter, but I'm geniunely surprised that a court can essentially punish the victim of a crime when that victim presumably is of sound mind.

Surely there are other people, (be it Bird, Milligan, or friends and family of either of them), would have a closer insight to whether she's at risk than the courts? (Having said that, maybe they have spoken in court.)

The only other incident that reminds me of that is the shopkeeper who has been turned into a criminal for defending himself when attacked in his own shop - an act which has resulted in a general outcry by public via the media.

So you understand why Bird shouldn't approach her, but you can't understand why Milligan can't approach him?

Do you not see that potentially the same outcome can exist in either method of approach?

Again, the interests of the court is ultimate protection for all involved. Whether it's emotionally or morally right is irrelevant, they have a responsibility to serve the community including the parties in this particular case.
 

PB_old

Guest
What do you mean by a story? As in, he's said one thing and then another? I'm assuming this is to do with the court case? Doesn't that basically equate to lying? (I'm not sure if we're talking about lying under oath, which is a different prospect.)

So he should be de-registered, even if he didn't do it, because he lied? I wouldn't be able to name a single NRL player, (or person), that hasn't lied. Of course, if it's in court, that's different - but if he gets found not guilty, surely that has to stand? If, hypothetically, he was found not guilty, and he was de-registered by the NRL, could he sue?

Further to Iafeta's words; have other players been de-registered without being charged with offences?

Yes. Dane Tilse was one, and Latu was de-registered before being charged, albeit subsequently. The difference is that they admitted guilt, where Bird has admitted nothing. In fact, has said nothing, not even to his club, apart from initially dobbing his mate in it with the stupid wench's help, and giving the club an assurance he wasn't involved. Beyond that... nada.

He has also been charged with assault from a January incident. Probably enough grounds for bringing the game into disrepute if you use Todd Carney as a guide. Carney was found guilty of DUI in 2007 but was allowed to continue. After allegations of a nightclub incident surfaced this year, and his subsequent disagreement with a Canberra imposed set of conditions, the NRL de-registered him. The 2007 conviction is a moot point as he remained registered. The subsequent turfing sets a guide to how they may handle Bird.

Millgan might be one blemish, but the January nightclub charge may stick.

Re: the AVO. If the charges are brought up independently of the parties, then presumably the assumption of risk to a party is up to the prosecution? She is, for lack of a better term, a hostile supporting witness impeding a charge supported from independent sources. It's protection from collusion as much as physical injury.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

PB_old

Guest
FYI: A portion of an NRL contract pertaining to obligations. (As a follow on from Iafeta's post)

SECTION 3: OBLIGATIONS OF THE PLAYER

3.1 General Obligations

The Player agrees to:
...
(l) at all times, act in the best interests of the Club and the NRL;
(m) submit to the jurisdiction of, and comply with the decisions and determinations of, the NRL, the NRL Board, the Chief Executive Officer of the NRL, the Salary Cap Auditor of the NRL, the NRL Judiciary, the NRL Appeals Committee, the NRL Drugs Tribunal and any other body with authority to make decisions or determinations in relation to the Game, the NRL Rules, the NRL Competition, Representative Matches or any Related Competitions including, without limitation, the payment of any fines as and when required and compliance with any suspension from playing or from registration as a Player or other limitation);

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty open ended. They have grounds if they want them.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Jesbass_old

Guest
He was required to submit a verbal report to his employer (the CEO of the Sharks), his story has changed multiple times. There is also massive inconsistencies in his story to the police.

IMO, yes he should. It is an offence to make an inaccurate statement to the police.

The NRL has the rights to register or deregister whichever player they like. I'm sure you'll find that's part of their collective bargaining agreement with the RLPA. This means that even if Bird is found innocent, or more technically not guilty, and perhaps that may be on a technicality or because Milligan is not coercive under oath, either way the NRL has in it's code and in it's bargaining agreement the right to deregister a player.

Fair enough. Like I said, lying in court or under oath or to the police is a different thing entirely from lying under other circumstances.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
So you understand why Bird shouldn't approach her, but you can't understand why Milligan can't approach him?

Do you not see that potentially the same outcome can exist in either method of approach?

Again, the interests of the court is ultimate protection for all involved. Whether it's emotionally or morally right is irrelevant, they have a responsibility to serve the community including the parties in this particular case.

Lol, don't sound so shocked! ;)

Before reading this thread, I'd never heard of an AVO, so I naturally relate it to the closest thing I know that seems to fit the bill in one way or another, and that's a restraining order. My only experiences regarding restraining orders are when one of the two parties wants to get close, and the other one wants that party kept away from them, so a restraining order keeps that person away. I've never heard of a situation where something like a restraining order can be used to separate two individuals who mutually want to be together. This is the first time, so of course it comes as a surprise that a court can rule on who has relationships with who in this regard.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
Further to Iafeta's words; have other players been de-registered without being charged with offences?

Yes. Dane Tilse was one, and Latu was de-registered before being charged, albeit subsequently. The difference is that they admitted guilt, where Bird has admitted nothing. In fact, has said nothing, not even to his club, apart from initially dobbing his mate in it with the stupid wench's help, and giving the club an assurance he wasn't involved. Beyond that... nada.

He has also been charged with assault from a January incident. Probably enough grounds for bringing the game into disrepute if you use Todd Carney as a guide. Carney was found guilty of DUI in 2007 but was allowed to continue. After allegations of a nightclub incident surfaced this year, and his subsequent disagreement with a Canberra imposed set of conditions, the NRL de-registered him. The 2007 conviction is a moot point as he remained registered. The subsequent turfing sets a guide to how they may handle Bird.

Millgan might be one blemish, but the January nightclub charge may stick.

Re: the AVO. If the charges are brought up independently of the parties, then presumably the assumption of risk to a party is up to the prosecution? She is, for lack of a better term, a hostile supporting witness impeding a charge supported from independent sources. It's protection from collusion as much as physical injury.

There seems to be quite a bit of grey area going on. I thought the way Latu's incident was handled was poor - not because he got de-registered, but because it was done before he was found guilty. And that should have been a precedent that is kept to. Players should, in my idealistic world, be aware that if they step out of the line, the NRL can help them out with issues, but that there will be consequences.

What did Dane Tilse allegedly do that the NRL de-registered him in response to?
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
FYI: A portion of an NRL contract pertaining to obligations. (As a follow on from Iafeta's post)

SECTION 3: OBLIGATIONS OF THE PLAYER

3.1 General Obligations

The Player agrees to:
...
(l) at all times, act in the best interests of the Club and the NRL;
(m) submit to the jurisdiction of, and comply with the decisions and determinations of, the NRL, the NRL Board, the Chief Executive Officer of the NRL, the Salary Cap Auditor of the NRL, the NRL Judiciary, the NRL Appeals Committee, the NRL Drugs Tribunal and any other body with authority to make decisions or determinations in relation to the Game, the NRL Rules, the NRL Competition, Representative Matches or any Related Competitions including, without limitation, the payment of any fines as and when required and compliance with any suspension from playing or from registration as a Player or other limitation);

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Pretty open ended. They have grounds if they want them.

Yeah, I guess the whole 'bringing the game into disrepute' would apply, going by that.

I wonder why they didn't act accordingly with Bellamy (fining the club - not the individual) when they clearly thought it was a big enough issue to sue.
 

PB_old

Guest
What did Dane Tilse allegedly do that the NRL de-registered him in response to?

Allegedly sexually assault. He was pissed and hopped into a bed in a Uni' dorm as a "prank". Don't know what else happend. Maybe something, maybe nothing, but he naturally scared the shit out of a 19 yo. No charges, but was sacked, fined (along with 12 other players), and de-registered for a year.
 

PB_old

Guest
Yeah, I guess the whole 'bringing the game into disrepute' would apply, going by that.

I wonder why they didn't act accordingly with Bellamy (fining the club - not the individual) when they clearly thought it was a big enough issue to sue.

I guess because the integrity of the NRL and judiciary as a whole was upheld by the fine, and the integrity of the individuals on the judiciary are to be upheld either under that umbrella or at said individual's discretion as members of the public.
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
Allegedly sexually assault. He was pissed and hopped into a bed in a Uni' dorm as a "prank". Don't know what else happend. Maybe something, maybe nothing, but he naturally scared the shit out of a 19 yo. No charges, but was sacked, fined (along with 12 other players), and de-registered for a year.

There were thirteen of them in the bed?!? No wonder she got a fright!
 

Jesbass_old

Guest
I guess because the integrity of the NRL and judiciary as a whole was upheld by the fine, and the integrity of the individuals on the judiciary are to be upheld either under that umbrella or at said individual's discretion as members of the public.

I'm not sure that you've answered my question? I'm wondering why the approach from the judiciary was against the club, (and it usually is in similar, less extreme situations), and not the individuals responsible. Does this mean that the staff are employed by the club but not by the NRL, whereas a player is employed by the club but also registered with the NRL?

(Blatantly thinking out loud...again.)