• Welcome to the forums of Green & Gold Rugby.
    We have recently made some changes to the amount of discussions boards on the forum.
    Over the coming months we will continue to make more changes to make the forum more user friendly for all to use.
    Thanks, Admin.

Kurtley Beale

Status
Not open for further replies.
Quick Hands

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
Train Without a Station said:
Sick of being blackmailed?

Blackmail doesn't align with Beale's impassioned plea not to share the messages with Link and above.

He happily got into the situation with the hope of avoiding the consequences.

It appears his error was assuming somebody would enforce their original agreement as part of the apology.
Click to expand...

But what was the original agreement?

Was it an official disciplinary determination or was it simply an agreement between 2 people to keep something to themselves?

I keep coming back to systems and process as the root cause of all of this.

Leave the personalities out of it and we are left with almost complete failure of systems and absence of process. It was a train wreck waiting to happen.

One off incidents are down to the individual/s concerned, but when we have this level of organisational failure the buck stops with those at the top.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
fatprop said:
simpler scenario is the texts would be forgotten if he could not act like a fluffbunny for while, he couldn't, they weren't
Click to expand...

Exactly. All the Beale sympathisers cannot seem to grasp this. He was given the opportunity for it to all be forgotten if he kept in line. From the news texts published, it seems he asked for this with the alternative being this process back in June. He willing chose this knowing his past mistakes could come back to haunt him if he didn't keep himself together.
 
Chris McCracken

Chris McCracken

Jim Clark (26)
I still can't help but chortle a little when they use the term "forensic examination" of the phone. The tribunal wouldn't know their arse from a hole in the ground when it comes to this stuff.

EDIT: This post is not how I intended for it to come off. Put it down to poor editing.
 
Benaud

Benaud

Tom Lawton (22)
Train Without a Station said:
Exactly. All the Beale sympathisers cannot seem to grasp this. He was given the opportunity for it to all be forgotten if he kept in line. From the news texts published, it seems he asked for this with the alternative being this process back in June. He willing chose this knowing his past mistakes could come back to haunt him if he didn't keep himself together.
Click to expand...


Yep. And they were dealt with a $45K fine. Now they have a new erroneous trial about a plane argument on the same subject.
 
Scrubber2050

Scrubber2050

Mark Ella (57)
No question Beale is dumber and dumber. Disrespectful, dispicable messages blah blah towards a staffer, who also is a woman. Di reportedly felt threatened, intimidated, blah blah from the actions of KB (Kurtley Beale).

KB (Kurtley Beale) is protecting someone - fair enough. He's taking the hit and so be it.

Conspiracy relived :
I wonder when the inevitable tapes will come out. There has to be some recordings somewhere.
 
Froggy

Froggy

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Can we not question the roles and actions of Patston or Link without being labeled a Beale sympathiser.
I offer no apology for Beale, and back 1000 or so posts stated I thought he should have lost his ARU contract and top-up, been banned from the EOYT, fined and made to undergo counselling.
It isn't an either/or though. I still question Link's role. Let's look at the facts.
He selects the team, the captain and Patston, none were imposed on him. He is the line manager in charge on the tour.
It is under his control, when he is the man responsible, that all this shit went down. It was he who lost the respect of HIS team, as he stated himself.
In my business, the line manager in that situation would be the man answerable.
 
Inside Shoulder

Inside Shoulder

Nathan Sharpe (72)
Chris McCracken said:
I still can't help but chortle a little when they use the term "forensic examination" of the phone. The tribunal wouldn't know their arse from a hole in the ground when it comes to this stuff.
Click to expand...

And nor, seemingly, would you.
That's why tribunal's receive evidence: to tell them stuff they don't know, such as who saw or heard what, when. What is revealed by the forensic examination of a phone is just a very specialised example of evidence - probably expert evidence if its to be proven properly.
No one on the tribunal was present on the plane or when KB (Kurtley Beale) hit send and yet the evidence informs them of these things.
Now if one of the parties - in this case the prosecution who also bear the onus of proof - cannot prove something because they have no evidence of it that is not the tribunal's fault.
 
Benaud

Benaud

Tom Lawton (22)
Braveheart81

Braveheart81

Will Genia (78)
Staff member
Inside Shoulder said:
And nor, seemingly, would you.
That's why tribunal's receive evidence: to tell them stuff they don't know, such as who saw or heard what, when. What is revealed by the forensic examination of a phone is just a very specialised example of evidence - probably expert evidence if its to be proven properly.
No one on the tribunal was present on the plane or when KB (Kurtley Beale) hit send and yet the evidence informs them of these things.
Now if one of the parties - in this case the prosecution who also bear the onus of proof - cannot prove something because they have no evidence of it that is not the tribunal's fault.
Click to expand...

Absolutely.

It's not the tribunal's fault that the only party who brought any sort of forensic evidence was Beale's.

The ARU were the ones who wanted Beale's contract terminated. They were relying on the fact that all the messages were from Beale. When it unable to be proven that the second more offensive message originated from Beale they were left without their smoking gun.

Maybe the ARU needed to realise that the guy fighting for his career was going to go to some effort to defend himself and if they wanted to get their way, they'd probably have to do the same.
 
Scrubber2050

Scrubber2050

Mark Ella (57)
Biffo said:
as a matter of interest, do you know the circulation for "rugby books"?
i understand that FitzSimons' biographies of Farr-Jones and Eales sold "well" but i don't know what that means.
Click to expand...

No idea Biffo. I should have qualified my statement and said a "rugby best seller"

Fitzie gives me the shits simplly because he wears a hanky over this bald spot
 
Chris McCracken

Chris McCracken

Jim Clark (26)
Inside Shoulder said:
And nor, seemingly, would you.
That's why tribunal's receive evidence: to tell them stuff they don't know, such as who saw or heard what, when.
No one on the tribunal was present on the plane or when KB (Kurtley Beale) hit send and yet the evidence informs them of these things.
Now if one of the parties - in this case the prosecution who also bear the onus of proof - cannot prove something because they have no evidence of it that is not the tribunal's fault.
Click to expand...

I realise I did not make myself clear. I deleted a portion of my post, but not the entire part I intended. I had intended to leave "I still can't help but chortle a little when they use the term "forensic examination" of the phone."

The following sentence was introducing a paragraph about the reliability of evidence drawn from such examinations which got a bit confusing. I just didn't delete enough before posting.

You are correct in your statement. It was a sentence for a different context.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top