-
@jegga best part about the herald article is that the article under it is an story on the guy who punched Charlie F's wife going to jail... that was a lot less worse than the above, at least she ran over his kid with her car so there were 'circumstances'.
Moral of story, be a FAB, no jail, punch someone related to an AB and be 'joe bloggs' jail.
obviously that's not the full story but that's exactly how it looks to the public and that somehow it's all the nzrfus doing.
-
@WillieTheWaiter said in Appalling double-standard:
This farks me off because of the way this is dragging 'rugby' through the mud - when in fact it's got fark all to do with it.
Wellington are between a rock and a hard place because it's not up to them to be the judge on this - that's up to, you know, the actual judge so as far as they're concerned he's in the clear - but sheesh there's going to be some repercussions from the fans I'm sure.
Actually, Wellington Rugby does have a role here. Now that the judicial process has ended, they can decide whether to keep him on their books or not. If they don't rip up his contract, they can still decide whether to let him play or not.
Hopefully the people of Wellington will show their feelings towards the Mayor who wrote a letter of support in the upcoming elections as well...
Actually, it was the Mayor of Upper Hutt, not Wellington.
-
Under what grounds could they terminate his contract?
-
@Hooroo said in Appalling double-standard:
Under what grounds could they terminate his contract?
As far as I know, being "discharged without conviction" doesn't mean you are 'not guilty'. Criminal law and employment law are two different beasts that (I think) require different degrees of proof, culpability. I'm not an employment lawyer, but I can imagine that employees (ie, contracted rugby players) must meet certain requirements like not damaging your employer's business. Wellington Rugby could lose sponsors, members etc over this. It could hurt them financially. I can imagine that if an employee can be held liable for that damage, he could get fired. But as I said, I'm not an employment lawyer. That's why I added that if he stays in their employment, they can still decide not to let him play for the Lions and could either not let him play at all, or demote him to the Development team (which has finished its competition for the season).
-
The Judge's Notes are in this article:
-
Looks like there is more to come...
From Stuff
BREAKING NEWS Solicitor-General's office 'looking into' Losi Filipo assault case, says it was unaware of it ... More soon
-
@taniwharugby oh dear , seems understandable as she was pretty hot.
Oh yeah the head injury stuff was pretty nasty too.
-
@Stargazer said in Appalling double-standard:
@WillieTheWaiter said in Appalling double-standard:
This farks me off because of the way this is dragging 'rugby' through the mud - when in fact it's got fark all to do with it.
Wellington are between a rock and a hard place because it's not up to them to be the judge on this - that's up to, you know, the actual judge so as far as they're concerned he's in the clear - but sheesh there's going to be some repercussions from the fans I'm sure.
Actually, Wellington Rugby does have a role here. Now that the judicial process has ended, they can decide whether to keep him on their books or not. If they don't rip up his contract, they can still decide whether to let him play or not.
Hopefully the people of Wellington will show their feelings towards the Mayor who wrote a letter of support in the upcoming elections as well...
Actually, it was the Mayor of Upper Hutt, not Wellington.
totally agree that the welly rugby union will need to do something here - the uproar of the public is too great and the NZRFU and the WRU are the easy targets in the eye of the public and they are taking the blame - look on Stuff - so many comments saying 'nz rugby condones violence'
My organisation has over 4000 people working for it - I'm sure there are some people working here that have convictions / discharges - doesn't mean the organisation condones violence / theft / whatever.
The anger is totally misdirected - needs to be pointed at the judge and supporters (Mayor of wherever - Welly/UH, all same same to me, some dump at the bottom of the north island.. )..
Anyway he'll be demoted to non playing for sure - which is a shame cause i so enjoy watching the massive hypocrisy of people like him who score tries, cross their chest and kiss the cross on the wristband..
-
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11717666
Makes for pretty bad reading
-
15 out of 25-30,000? That's basically statistically insignificant.
I agree with Willie, why is the NZRU coping heat about it?
-
@antipodean said in Appalling double-standard:
15 out of 25-30,000? That's basically statistically insignificant.
I agree with Willie, why is the NZRU coping heat about it?
Because of the rugby culture of racism, wife beating, homophobic, stripper hiring/abusing and assault we have in NZ.
So 15 players avoided convictions, I wonder how many other people, that don't play rugby avoided convictions?
-
@jegga said in Appalling double-standard:
http://m.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11717666
Makes for pretty bad reading
that's an appalling article. Jesus.
-
@Stargazer said in Appalling double-standard:
The Judge's Notes are in this article:
So, the judge is comparing being a pro rugby player to medicine, law and police ? fuck me days, good luck getting in the cops with a violence conviction......
but if I still wanted to try perhaps I could smack a couple of people down Courtney place this Saturday and hope I get in front of this judge ?
-
yeah it's a shit article and I couldn't care less about guys like Weepu, Nonu etc who just breached alcohol ban areas or made a little bit of noise.
From what I read this guy punched a girl and kicked a guy multiple times in the head when he was on the ground.
Regardless of the circumstances, or whether he was provoked, it's a serious crime and I think the outcome is wrong.
Fair enough that he has career prospects that may be affected, but make an example of him so the next guy doesn't act like such a dick when he's out on the piss.
As others have mentioned.....That's what the judge should've done, not his employer
-
@SammyC said in Appalling double-standard:
yeah it's a shit article and I couldn't care less about guys like Weepu, Nonu etc who just breached alcohol ban areas or made a little bit of noise.
From what I read this guy punched a girl and kicked a guy multiple times in the head when he was on the ground.
Regardless of the circumstances, or whether he was provoked, it's a serious crime and I think the outcome is wrong.
Fair enough that he has career prospects that may be affected, but make an example of him so the next guy doesn't act like such a dick when he's out on the piss.
As others have mentioned.....That's what the judge should've done, not his employer
Heaping Nonu and Weepu in with the rest of those jokers is ridiculous.
As you say Sammy perhaps he was provoked but as I'm sure we've all experienced sometimes "provocation" to some people involves simply making eye contact for a fraction of a second. No excuse whatsoever for what he did.
I'm pretty disgusted that one of the more recent ABs I admire in George Moala essentially got away with what he did too, as for Savea I was working with police at the time of his 'issues" and the consensus was the assault was about as minor as it could possibly be.
-
@mariner4life how pissed off would you be if you took your mrs out for dinner and Piri Weepu was tapping on the window saying " bro , Ard you going to finish that"?
-
Personally, I think for charges of a serious violent nature, discharge without conviction should not apply. It's disgusting that this fuckwit's potential future is given precedence over the significant trauma to his victims. I mean FFS, this wasn't a little push n shove.
Also, I also HATE the fact that 'willingness' to participate in restorative justice is seen as a mitigating factor. Who wouldn't offer, if they knew it would be favorable to their case? It's a fucking insult to victims of violence. Anyone can show remorse for a bit too, if that reduces their sentence.
The judge makes some very weird comments in his summary too. That whole convictions seen as a rite of passage thing, and it is only now in 2016 that people in NZ are truly beginning to understand the impact of convictions. Fuck off you patronising twat.
-
Surprisingly the stuff article reporting on the judges reasoning for the "no conviction" is actually pretty good.
When you read the article, there were quite a number of mitigating circumstances in Filipo's favour.- He was 17 at the time of the offence
- It was his first offence having a clean record prior (unlike his brother who was also involved in the incident and received a harsher punishment but not jail time)
- From the article, he did not punch either of the females but "more in the nature of pushing and shoving of each of them".
- Since the incident, he has made some reparations (and will likely have to continue to do so as I would imagine he would be liable for the loss of work and medical costs of his victims)
- Has undertaken "voluntary community work with a youth development group, which promoted sport as a way of helping youth with personal development"
- And finallly the potential impacts to a promising career.
Of those reasons, number 6 is potentially the least important.
Having the great displeasure of being involved in an ongoing court case (not criminal fortunately) over the past 5 years and going through all levels of the courts here in NSW, just about to go to the NSW Court of Appeal, I can certainly vouch for the fact that presiding Judges can often make mistakes and errors of judgement.
However, looking at the reasoning as presented, I would like to think that there was sufficient mitigation to warrant a "non-conviction". My only hope is that this type of thinking and line of reasoning would be applied across the board and not just to "rugby players".
I don't think that NZ or Australia benefits from any young person going to jail unless the offence is of sufficient standard becuase if they do there is only one guaranteed outcome... that person who goes to jail will be a much worse person at the end of it and this will likely have even longer term negative impacts on society.
My $0.02 worth.
p.s. If anyone is interested, I'm writing a rather long diary about the 5+ years of a court case which my wife and I are going through with regards to our home and the owner/builder we purchased from and local council. It is my intention in the very near future to start a new thread in the "Off Topic" section to detail this horrendous experiance. As they say... "Stay tuned for more information"
-
@Mokey said in Appalling double-standard:
Personally, I think for charges of a serious violent nature, discharge without conviction should not apply. It's disgusting that this fuckwit's potential future is given precedence over the significant trauma to his victims. I mean FFS, this wasn't a little push n shove.
Also, I also HATE the fact that 'willingness' to participate in restorative justice is seen as a mitigating factor. Who wouldn't offer, if they knew it would be favorable to their case? It's a fucking insult to victims of violence. Anyone can show remorse for a bit too, if that reduces their sentence.
The judge makes some very weird comments in his summary too. That whole convictions seen as a rite of passage thing, and it is only now in 2016 that people in NZ are truly beginning to understand the impact of convictions. Fuck off you patronising twat.
The gist I got was convictions could affect potential careers......riiiiiiiiiggggghhhhhhttttttt.
"I kicked someone half to death but I really feel it's going to be tough to fulfil my childhood dream of stacking shelves at Pak'n'Save if I have a criminal record....."
"Fair call, discharged without conviction...."
Appalling double-standard
