Democracy (a great read)

[PMQ_Tony]

http://dailyadvertiser.yourguide.co...cy-should-make-us-free-as-a-bird/1279033.aspx

Democracy should make us free as a Bird
22/09/2008 11:27:00 AM

IN this great country of ours, democracy rules and citizens have a right of presumed innocence until they are proven guilty.
Unlike other countries where anarchy reigns supreme, Australians are afforded the right of a fair trial, to be judged by their peers and if need be, dealt with accordingly.

Unfortunately for his sake, Australian rugby league star Greg Bird has not been served with his customary rights as an Australian.

Bird, who plays for the Cronulla Sharks in the NRL, has been crucified for an alleged act of assault upon his girlfriend Katie Milligan.

It is alleged Bird “glassed” Milligan in the face, which in turn resulted in Bird being charged with maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

While in no way do I condone the crime that Bird is alleged to have committed, the fact he is alleged to have committed it, should allow him to line-up for the Sharks when they play in the preliminary final.

Let’s be clear, Bird is yet to be found guilty of any crime.

He has been lambasted from pillar to post by people who have no idea about the actual surroundings of the incident.

Quite simply, Bird has become a victim of a trial by the media.

Let us put aside what Bird has alleged to have done for a minute.

I’m not here to argue the case for or against Bird as I am one of the people who have little idea as to what actually occurred in regards to the incident.

The fact Bird has been stood down from his job on the basis of something he is alleged to have done is ludicrous.

How can you stand someone down from something when you’re not even sure he has done it?

The public was quick to shout from the roof tops to throw Bird on the scrap-heap and never allow him to return.

I don’t think the Sharks will shelve Bird unless he is proven guilty in a court of law.

If they were to sack him before such a declaration, he would have every right to sue them for wrongful dismissal.

Put yourselves in the shoes of Bird.

If you were alleged to have done something untoward, yet there was no concrete evidence backing up the allegations, you would not appreciate being stood down from your job, let alone having your reputation tarnished.

Bird has suffered both.

Should Bird be found guilty of what he is alleged to have done to Milligan than I have no problems in throwing Bird to the wolves.

Quite frankly, if Bird was found guilty of glassing Milligan then he may not only have to say goodbye to his football career but he may have to say hello to an extended period behind bars.

However, as I keep reiterating, until such a time comes, if it ever does, Bird must be allowed to keep living his day-to-day life as close to normal as possible.

There is one test case that occurred in the NRL in recent times.

A 26-year old woman alleged Gold Coast Titans’ second-rower Anthony Laffranchi sexually assaulted her.

The allegation was taken to court where it was eventually dismissed in a court of law.

Putting all the pre-judgements aside, Laffranchi pleaded his case to the court, as the woman involved did, and the allegation was dismissed.

While the pending investigation and trial was taking place, Laffranchi was free to continue his job of playing footy for the Titans.

I fail to see why Bird has not

been handed the same rights as Laffranchi.

Upon the breaking of the story, Bird immediately claimed his innocence over the allegations, which has since been supported by Milligan, who insists Bird is innocent and that their love will conquer all barriers.

Rightly or wrongly, there is little evidence to suggest Bird will be found guilty in a court of law that he committed the allegations that have been placed upon him.

As such, he should be able to fulfil his commitments for the Sharks in the remaining games they play this season.

 

[sharks195]

Finally someone who says the right thing.

 

[XOLTON]

yeah, but it doesn’t really mean anything from the clubs perspective they are not going to change there decision.

 

[db72]

Great point of view...HOWEVER - he is guilty of perverting the course of justice by implicating his room mate, which does cast doubt over what actually happened. Dont get me wrong, I want him in the team, but why doesnt he just tell teh club exactly what happened as this, it seems, is all they require to allow him to play!

 

[coogeeboy]

The News LTD papers would have been the guilty ones of sensationalising this story without checking the facts first.
I hope when it all boils over that Greg Bird sets out & sues News LTD for damages.
And yes i agree that he should be re-instated to the Sharks line up for Friday Nights massacre of Melbourne immediately.

 

[Bungy]

a nornal resonse from a normal person:birdno

 

[brently]

garbage. if anyone put themselves in bird's shoes they would immediately feel desperately ashamed - personally and professionally. article says nothing of the way bird has handled himself since the alleged incident and that is the rub as far as the club and, importantly, sticky are concerned.

 

[Wibble]

db72, I understand fans being disappointed if Bird has either assaulted Milligan, or lied to police, or both.

I am not sure if there is such a crime in Australia as "perverting the course of justice" and I'm not sure if he has done that, even if he did implicate his mate. However, if he has, in a rash and cowardly moment, blamed his supposed mate, that is a poor thing to do. He certainly hasn't been found guilty in a legal sense of any crime involving assault or any crime involving deception as yet, and it is therefore hard to disagree with the article.

As stated in other posts, I believe the claim that all the club requires from Bird is an honest account of events is a bit disingenuous (and therefore not to be taken at face value).

If people wish to argue that one difference between Bird's circumstances and the Broncos players is that Bird has been charged, it is unfair to expect him to go against legal advice and explain his situation any time before his time in court. The Broncos players, by not being charged (and one would assume they would have been by now if they ever were going to be) are much more free to say what they want. Bird's situation is much more accurately likened to Laffranchi's, and as the article points out, Laffranchi was allowed to play, seemingly because he wasn't destroyed by the media like Bird has been.

...And now the media looks like it may have condemned a man who will be found "not guilty" (if not exactly "innocent"; no one gets that judgement), some sections are trying to save a little face (or money...).

 

[brently]

the nrl and the sharks are not a court of law, they are not obliged to wait for a verdict on any charge brought against bird. through his actions after the event - never mind what happened or did not happen in his apartment that fateful night - he has brought the club and the game into disrepute. i don't remember anyone being this upset when latu's contract was terminated well before he was found guilty of a criminal offence. bird appears fortunate not to have been dealt with similarly; one suspects a transparent account of his actions presented to the club would change this in very short time.

 

[Megashark]

i don't remember anyone being this upset when latu's contract was terminated well before he was found guilty of a criminal offence. bird appears fortunate not to have been dealt with similarly; one suspects a transparent account of his actions presented to the club would change this in very short time.

This is what Tony Zappia had to say about comparisons between the Bird and Latu situations:

"It was pretty cut and dried circumstances and the matters were not contested by the player," Zappia said of Latu.

"From what I understand happened this morning at court, Greg and his counsel said they'd be strongly defending the allegations. It's a slightly different situation."

 

[brently]

thanks, mega. exactly my point; latu was immediately upfront and honest even though one suspects he knew his goose was cooked. bird has been evasive and duplicitous and consequently has done himself no real favours.

 

[bort]

not to mention the chick with the broken nose made a statement against him
he was released because there was no dount he was guilty
he actually was a pretty big loss
sullivan was strong-> latu was better-> degois was better still-> seu seu maybe?

 

[Wibble]

You took a completely different point, brently, from Mega posting that quote than I did.

The way I read it, is that Latu confessed his own guilt, leaving the club with little choice but to terminate his contract, and not requiring a court of law to make any judgement (since Latu made it himself). Bird has not been found guilty by a court of law, and has not confessed to any crime.

Bird may indeed be ashamed of his actions, or not, depending on his actions and the bearing of his moral compass. His feelings would seem a red herring- remorse or lack thereof raised to villify him, fear and sadness brought to attention to evoke sympathy, but none of them important to the issues of fairness and justice involved in this incident.

If Bird comes forward to the club, and says he hasn't done anything wrong, or outlines some minor infraction that has had unfortunate consequences, would everyone then be happy that he just returns to the team? What would have changed to make that all right? He and Milligan have claimed his innocence via several mediums, so what does adding one more do that miraculously means we can again field our strongest possible team?

That is the point of difference between the Latu and Bird incident I took from Mega's post, and it seems to me it is also the main argument Zappia is making in the quote. I'm not sure how you read Bird and his legal counsel strongly defending himself as being evasive and duplicitous.

I think this quote is a counter to your use of the Latu incident as an example of why Bird can be treated as Latu was.

It is true that the NRL and the Sharks are not a court of law, and are not required to act on a verdict from a court of law. This has not prevented NRL or Shark's representatives from claiming the Bird incident is out of their hands until the police and courts have dealt with it. But they clearly have not waited. They have acted and are now waiting, and claiming they can't act, which seems a bit unreasonable.

 

[brently]

fair enough, wib; although my reference to bird being evasive and duplicitous was not in regards to how strongly he defends himself in court but how weakly he has handled the matter outside the court - won't talk to the club but talks to the media, 'i want to play finals' etc. i know he has legal advice but i suspect he will have to do more than re-establish communication with the club to repair the damage done. sticky tried to contact him repeatedly before he had any such legal advice and was ignored - a perilous act in terms of his playing future under our coach.

 

[Wibble]

Fair enough right back, brently- I should have interpreted your quote about evasive and duplicitous (great word, by the way) a little more broadly.

I don't know what contact Bird has or hasn't had with Sticky, but if he has ignored his coach, that is hard for a club to ignore. It is one thing to not wreck a defense case, but another to cut off contact with your employer. I don't know where he is at, but I can see how his supposed actions (and inactions) are creating such diverse views.

 

[KELPIE]

Maybe someone can clarify for me, if the case is thrown out and Bird tries to sue the media, doesn't that then force him into court to try and prove he didn't do anything, hence putting his head right back in the lions mouth?

Also the difference between Laffranchi and Bird is simple.

Laffranchi = Off Season.
Bird = Lead up to the finals from a team well in it.

 

[IronShark]

I agree with most people that, given the direction this matter is heading ie; nowhere, Bird should be reinstated and allowed to play. However, I would just like to point out that in all the debate over "innocent until proven guilty" many people have missed a very important point. Greg Bird is an employee of the Cronulla Sutherland Sharks and, as his employer, they have every right to stand him down (on full pay) if they feel it is warranted. It has nothing to do with the legal proceedings. I'm not saying I agree with the stance but there are many issues that we don't know the details of and I'm sure they have influenced the clubs decision to take the action that they have.

Like most Sharks supporters, I strongly hope Bird did not commit such a disgraceful act and that the matter can be resolved sooner rather than later but that is a matter for Bird and the club to sort out.

 

[pazman]

the nrl and the sharks are not a court of law, they are not obliged to wait for a verdict on any charge brought against bird.

That is ridiculous. Of course they are obliged to wait for a verdict in the courts, they are an employer. Do they think they know better than the courts?

 

[brently]

welcome paz. they know that bird (an employee) has acted against the directions and best interests of the club (the employer). that is enough for them to stand him down; the legal procedings against bird are to determine if he is guilty of a criminal offence - it has nothing to do with his status at the club.