-
-
@taniwharugby said in Appalling double-standard:
@No-Quarter said in Appalling double-standard:
It was him that claimed it had stopped him from playing rugby. Well, sharing your entire life on social media can have consequences. Who would have thought? Lol.
Ah OK, I wasn't sure if it was him, so just said the Media as I expect making shit up is something they might do....
While it appears he still got off very lightly, you have to think the mitigating factors are becoming clearer and you can see this as being why the judge may have gone down the route he did (even if there is never an excuse to stomp on someone on the deck)...is funny how Tew is getting more of a grilling than the Judge though!
The judge explicitly states that a sentence of 1.5 years would be unimpeachable as a starting point. He then says that conventional sentencing would not be appropriate because of his age, it being a first time offence, his remorse etc. He says that the defendant would receive a conviction with conventional sentencing. The judge then says that the punishment would be out of proportion because it could ruin his career. He does also say that this would apply to any career.
The judge did not mention any mitigating factors such as being provoked which took away from the seriousness of the assault. As the judge said, other people would go to prison for what he did.
The
-
@taniwharugby said in Appalling double-standard:
@hydro11 I'd argue it was more that it would adversely affect his career, which happened to be rugby....whether the same rule had applied if this guy was a promising swimmer, lawyer or something else is probably more the point.
The thing is that most people view playing professional sport as a privilege. You get paid to do what most people dream of doing. The judge says it should be treated like any other career. I would argue that the man in question is also a car groomer. He can make money doing that if he could no longer play rugby.
It just seems a weird precedent to set. How do you tell whether or not someone is good enough at their sport to have a genuine career at it. How about law? Can someone before the courts just enrol in a law paper at uni to get off a conviction? Sounds like a good get out of jail free card. I don't have a problem with some people avoiding convictions for less serious charges but I think this was just way too serious - an unprovoked attack on 4 people.
un -
@hydro11 said in Appalling double-standard:
@taniwharugby said in Appalling double-standard:
@No-Quarter said in Appalling double-standard:
It was him that claimed it had stopped him from playing rugby. Well, sharing your entire life on social media can have consequences. Who would have thought? Lol.
Ah OK, I wasn't sure if it was him, so just said the Media as I expect making shit up is something they might do....
While it appears he still got off very lightly, you have to think the mitigating factors are becoming clearer and you can see this as being why the judge may have gone down the route he did (even if there is never an excuse to stomp on someone on the deck)...is funny how Tew is getting more of a grilling than the Judge though!
The judge explicitly states that a sentence of 1.5 years would be unimpeachable as a starting point. He then says that conventional sentencing would not be appropriate because of his age, it being a first time offence, his remorse etc. He says that the defendant would receive a conviction with conventional sentencing. The judge then says that the punishment would be out of proportion because it could ruin his career. He does also say that this would apply to any career.
The judge did not mention any mitigating factors such as being provoked which took away from the seriousness of the assault. As the judge said, other people would go to prison for what he did.
The
Yeah I read that same summary of facts, and while you would expect him to put that in as a fact, I am sure provocation was something he used in his thought process
From facts coming out, it was not an unprovoked attack (not that this takes away form the seriousness of what he did)
-
@taniwharugby said in Appalling double-standard:
@hydro11 said in Appalling double-standard:
@taniwharugby said in Appalling double-standard:
@No-Quarter said in Appalling double-standard:
It was him that claimed it had stopped him from playing rugby. Well, sharing your entire life on social media can have consequences. Who would have thought? Lol.
Ah OK, I wasn't sure if it was him, so just said the Media as I expect making shit up is something they might do....
While it appears he still got off very lightly, you have to think the mitigating factors are becoming clearer and you can see this as being why the judge may have gone down the route he did (even if there is never an excuse to stomp on someone on the deck)...is funny how Tew is getting more of a grilling than the Judge though!
The judge explicitly states that a sentence of 1.5 years would be unimpeachable as a starting point. He then says that conventional sentencing would not be appropriate because of his age, it being a first time offence, his remorse etc. He says that the defendant would receive a conviction with conventional sentencing. The judge then says that the punishment would be out of proportion because it could ruin his career. He does also say that this would apply to any career.
The judge did not mention any mitigating factors such as being provoked which took away from the seriousness of the assault. As the judge said, other people would go to prison for what he did.
The
Yeah I read that same summary of facts, and while you would expect him to put that in as a fact, I am sure provocation was something he used in his thought process
From facts coming out, it was not an unprovoked attack (not that this takes away form the seriousness of what he did)
The question being: are these really 'facts'? If there were witnesses, were they heard by the court under oath? If there is video footage, has it been assessed by the court? The sentencing notes from the Judge suggest that they were not. There is no mention of other mitigating factors than his age, no priors etc . The thing is, just as the prosecution must prove the facts that the accused (Losi & co) has done something, the defence must also prove the facts that they think may exonerate him or could affect his sentencing. Just claiming something after the judge had delivered his sentence isn't good enough. And also, if the proof exists, nobody has done Losi & co done any favours by not coming forward or by withholding it.
-
my apologies @Stargazer I forgot to use 'allegedly'
-
@taniwharugby said in Appalling double-standard:
@hydro11 said in Appalling double-standard:
@taniwharugby said in Appalling double-standard:
@No-Quarter said in Appalling double-standard:
It was him that claimed it had stopped him from playing rugby. Well, sharing your entire life on social media can have consequences. Who would have thought? Lol.
Ah OK, I wasn't sure if it was him, so just said the Media as I expect making shit up is something they might do....
While it appears he still got off very lightly, you have to think the mitigating factors are becoming clearer and you can see this as being why the judge may have gone down the route he did (even if there is never an excuse to stomp on someone on the deck)...is funny how Tew is getting more of a grilling than the Judge though!
The judge explicitly states that a sentence of 1.5 years would be unimpeachable as a starting point. He then says that conventional sentencing would not be appropriate because of his age, it being a first time offence, his remorse etc. He says that the defendant would receive a conviction with conventional sentencing. The judge then says that the punishment would be out of proportion because it could ruin his career. He does also say that this would apply to any career.
The judge did not mention any mitigating factors such as being provoked which took away from the seriousness of the assault. As the judge said, other people would go to prison for what he did.
The
Yeah I read that same summary of facts, and while you would expect him to put that in as a fact, I am sure provocation was something he used in his thought process
From facts coming out, it was not an unprovoked attack (not that this takes away form the seriousness of what he did)
Some random person on Facebook is not good evidence. As to what you posted from Greg Morgan, it doesn't necessarily prove he was lying.
If we want to operate by baseless speculation then why don't we talk about how one of the victims allegedly saw Filipo at a pub and he was laughing about the incident. If that is true then Filipo showed no remorse (which was one of the mitigating factors). Baseless evidence can and does go both ways.
-
@WillieTheWaiter Yeah, had a watch, Henry lost it. He made it more about him than anything else. Basically any point Tew had was just completely ignored. It was like Henry had taken adult discussion level tips from Donald Trump. Does anybody think that any call the victims received from Tew directly after that interview would be sincere? It's one thing to say that perhaps Tew should get in touch with them, but it's another to demand the timing. Utterly ridiculous.
I'm the first to admit that on first readings, I was looking for the pitchfork .. but then I read that article about whether or not the lad makes something of his life through rugby, or gets chucked into the downward spiral of the NZ taxpayer funded justice system. Tew's point about Moala was bang on there.
-
as I said, I forgot to state that there are allegedly more facts coming to light.
I hate the remorse thing, people will almost always show remorse after they are caught or when being punished for something.
-
On the role model thing - people get far to wound up about who "should" or "shouldn't" be role models...
Kids choose who their role models will be, whether some arbitrary committee on the fern likes it or not.
That doesn't abdicate parental responsibility for ensuring kidshave good role models in their life - but how many people here didn't think a sports star was a small god when they were growing up... or have we forgotten? Sir Paddles and Sir Martin Crowe were mine. My parents were also smart enough that had one of said cricketers done something really stupid, I'd have had it quietly explained...
You didn't want to grow up to play like Michael Jones?
It's also disingenuous to pretend that rugby is just operating the same as any other business would be in the same situation, or that it's a business just like any other. Unless every other business gets predominately Council funded stadiums built for them, massive free media coverage etc. I'm quite happy to see my rates go towards it, etc etc... but rugby has to take the bad with the good on these sorts of things.
From what little I've seen of him, if Tew has a fault, it's that he can be dismissive of things too quickly. If he wasn't sharp enough to see this mornings shock jocks going feral on him, then he wasn't thinking very hard on this one...
-
Apparently NZRU were only aware of the seriousness of the charges this week, WRU were also not aware, although not sure when they found out the seriousness of it.
Looks like it was the WRU that has dropped the ball here, and NZRU is collateral. I wonder what the media reaction to WRU & NZRU would have been if they sacked him during or before the court hearing, before becoming aware of the nature of the charges?
-
or they would have been seen as heavy handed, ruining a guys career....thats how our media woulda played it
-
@Stargazer said in Appalling double-standard:
@taniwharugby said in Appalling double-standard:
@hydro11 said in Appalling double-standard:
@taniwharugby said in Appalling double-standard:
@No-Quarter said in Appalling double-standard:
It was him that claimed it had stopped him from playing rugby. Well, sharing your entire life on social media can have consequences. Who would have thought? Lol.
Ah OK, I wasn't sure if it was him, so just said the Media as I expect making shit up is something they might do....
While it appears he still got off very lightly, you have to think the mitigating factors are becoming clearer and you can see this as being why the judge may have gone down the route he did (even if there is never an excuse to stomp on someone on the deck)...is funny how Tew is getting more of a grilling than the Judge though!
The judge explicitly states that a sentence of 1.5 years would be unimpeachable as a starting point. He then says that conventional sentencing would not be appropriate because of his age, it being a first time offence, his remorse etc. He says that the defendant would receive a conviction with conventional sentencing. The judge then says that the punishment would be out of proportion because it could ruin his career. He does also say that this would apply to any career.
The judge did not mention any mitigating factors such as being provoked which took away from the seriousness of the assault. As the judge said, other people would go to prison for what he did.
The
Yeah I read that same summary of facts, and while you would expect him to put that in as a fact, I am sure provocation was something he used in his thought process
From facts coming out, it was not an unprovoked attack (not that this takes away form the seriousness of what he did)
The question being: are these really 'facts'? If there were witnesses, were they heard by the court under oath? If there is video footage, has it been assessed by the court? The sentencing notes from the Judge suggest that they were not. There is no mention of other mitigating factors than his age, no priors etc . The thing is, just as the prosecution must prove the facts that the accused (Losi & co) has done something, the defence must also prove the facts that they think may exonerate him or could affect his sentencing. Just claiming something after the judge had delivered his sentence isn't good enough. And also, if the proof exists, nobody has done Losi & co done any favours by not coming forward or by withholding it.
FFS hydro my whole point this entire time is that we don't have the facts. All we have is the judgement for the sentencing. We don't have the judgement from the trial. They are two different things.
Judgement from the trial: the judge weighs up all of the FACTS of the case and decides whether the accused is guilty or not. In this case Losi took responsibility for his actions and pleaded guilty.
Judgement for the sentencing: judge sentences the accused and gives his reasoning for the sentence.
All we have is the latter, and a very one-sided account of the incident from the "victims". And nothing else. In fact, if you read the judges notes that we do have he states that the "facts are not very clear" - I.E. drunken fucking hearsay.
MSM can get fucked.
We've got a kid that engaged in a fight with his older brother who was obviously a bad influence with previous convictions, and since making this mistake has done a fuckload of growing up. The NZRU and WRU have put the appropriate support systems in place and he has taken full responsibilty for his actions, and is highly unlikely to reoffend. Basically, his life is now heading in a positive direction.
Now, MSM has created controversy for clicks, everyone has worked themselves into a fucking frenzy based on no facts at all, and his fucking contract has been torn up. FFS what does that achieve? Do we want this kid to go off the rails because "FUCK YEAH RETRIBUTION EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE FUCK ACTUALLY HAPPENED!" "I'M A MORALLY SUPERIOR SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR YEAH!!".
What a fucking mess. And all because MSM wanted easy clicks with a bit of fucking controversy. Gah people are stupid. And don't even get me started on Paul fucking Henry. Sorry did I miss the memo where we give a flying fuck about what he thinks?
-
@taniwharugby and I don't think they'd have got much sympathy from anyone - if they'd even gone too close to it with it still before the courts.
-
@Donsteppa said in Appalling double-standard:
@taniwharugby and I don't think they'd have got much sympathy from anyone - if they'd even gone too close to it with it still before the courts.
that was my point, damned if they do, damned if they dont.
-
@taniwharugby the media I meant - not the rugby union. I don't think the media would have gone that close while it was still before the courts, not got any sympathy (or anywhere near this level of reaction) if they had.
-
Social Media justice doesnt care for facts....
-
@taniwharugby We're starting to wallow in some sort of 'everyone is out to get rugby' weariness in this thread...?
A bit like some politicians discover too late at the end of every electoral cycle - Twitter (or Facebook or Stuff Nation) isn't what the average person on the street thinks.
-
@Donsteppa I think the Media are in a bit of an odd space with the ABs and NZRU...the team are going so well, its almost like how else can we chop them down...I mean there is alot of negativity about rugby right now, uncompetitive, boring winning all the time, maybe we could just sit back and enjoy it while it lasts as we know it wont keep going, and as soon as they lose, they'll have somethign else to bitch about.
I reckon the headline woulda been something like: NZRU tear up troubled teens contract
Appalling double-standard
