• 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.

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
You know what Media loves to crucify people based on misinformation and lack of evidence.....why...because it sells stories and interest...

All of you crucifying Beale show why the media does this.....like the media many of you don't seem interested in what is real or not but just opportunity to play the moral high ground and crucify someone....

Sad inditement on society is my view....media are leaches so be one of them....read Rebecca Wilsons article if you are remotely interested in balanced view or if just interested in crucifying someone without any facts / evidence please continue
 

Dctarget

Tim Horan (67)
You know what Media loves to crucify people based on misinformation and lack of evidence...why.because it sells stories and interest.

All of you crucifying Beale show why the media does this...like the media many of you don't seem interested in what is real or not but just opportunity to play the moral high ground and crucify someone..

Sad inditement on society is my view..media are leaches so be one of them..read Rebecca Wilsons article if you are remotely interested in balanced view or if just interested in crucifying someone without any facts / evidence please continue
Mate you're making out the media like its a soulless entity completely controlled by one evil megalomaniac old guy who can push what ever agenda he wants as long as he can continue his personal cash flow.
 

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
You appear to be twisting what I said. I said "text" because the tribunal stated he sent one text (which was very offensive). It couldn't be proven he sent the other "more offensive" text hence my use of singular over plural. You jumped in and assumed I was referring to the other "more offensive" text.

I'm not twisting anything - you made a series of "FACTS" in which you seem to have oversimplified matters either accidentally or on purpose.

Of course the "FACT" that you left out was that a District Court judge saw all the evidence to decide guilt or innocence and then fix an appropriate penalty based on evidence.

It's actually quite interesting that it's ony when people are actually accused of something themselves, or have a close family member accused of something, that they become interested in evidence, proper process and the necessity for the accuser to prove their case. The rest of the time the opinions of people who haven't seen any of the evidence take precedence.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
You know what Media loves to crucify people based on misinformation and lack of evidence...why.because it sells stories and interest.

All of you crucifying Beale show why the media does this...like the media many of you don't seem interested in what is real or not but just opportunity to play the moral high ground and crucify someone..

Sad inditement on society is my view..media are leaches so be one of them..read Rebecca Wilsons article if you are remotely interested in balanced view or if just interested in crucifying someone without any facts / evidence please continue

Nobody has crucified Beale for anything that he hasn't done. Pull your head in. Tribunal found him guilty of sending an offensive text on Friday. Remember?
 

Blake

Ted Fahey (11)
You know what Media loves to crucify people based on misinformation and lack of evidence...why.because it sells stories and interest.

All of you crucifying Beale show why the media does this...like the media many of you don't seem interested in what is real or not but just opportunity to play the moral high ground and crucify someone..

Sad inditement on society is my view..media are leaches so be one of them..read Rebecca Wilsons article if you are remotely interested in balanced view or if just interested in crucifying someone without any facts / evidence please continue

Okay, I've read this article and all it has done has further enforced two view points:

1) Beale should be sacked
2) Pulver has handled this poorly
 

terry j

Ron Walden (29)
It is the first time I have actually seen mention that a position has been taken that the second text was fabricated.
.

yeah, that word really jumped out at me too, but surely it was just a poor choice (as there is no doubt an actual second text exists is there?) and meant authored.
 

Muglair

Alfred Walker (16)
I think it would be better to presume it was deliberately chosen. If I was technically au fait with whatever feeds are I would add the Courier Mail. Instead I will go and look each day this week for the next instalment.

Eventually the penny will drop ....
 

terry j

Ron Walden (29)
Not the same.
A closer analogy would be that it was yelled out in front of most of the workplace in the victims presence.
Making a politically incorrect statement quietly to one or two workmates,is not comparable.

I agree with the initial assesment. If it is true that the text was mistakenly sent to patston, then your illustration does not work. It show how much of a complete idiot beale is if he sends it to patston.

All this talk of sexual harrassment, how can it be if she was never intended to receive it?, ie be harassed?

Not for one second would I believe anyone here if they tried to claim they have never derogatorily spoken about someone else to another person. At best I would call them deluded (as in completely insane and out of touch with personal reality indicating very deep, real psychological issues if they truly believed that).

INTENT is what I am looking at. (if true) that it was mistakenly sent to here then the INTENT is clear. It was NOT therefore an intent to harrass or victimise.

Sexist? Well yes, in that the method of denigration was to concentrate on her sex, or the gender involved (to depersonalise it).

Is that truly indicative? No, not really. Why? Because of basic human nature. What do we do when we have a go at someone?

In almost every case we would go for the point of difference.

He's aboriginal? Black fluffybunny. From South Africa? Bloody south effrican bastard. Whinging pom, poofta, fucking rabbitohs supporter.

Fat, ugly, skinny beanpole. Whatever it is when lashing out we instinctively tend toward the point of difference.

It should not be too hard to make the point that being female in a predominantly male cohort would be particularly obvious.

Take another example to hopefully make my thoughts clearer, ex couples etc. You bump into your ex at the supermarket, bit of a row maybe, but you could hardly be charged with stalking. Similarly here, an accidently sent text cannot be called harrasment of any description, sexual or not, even if for only that it is ONE text.

NONE of this addresses past actions, simply all of this talk about sexual harrasment and the content of the text and how utterly vile it was. Sure, it would hurt Di when she found out. the point is she was never meant to find out. I mean we all agree pfitzy is an arsehole, but as long as we don't tell him he won't be upset right? So keep that under your hats.

I too, if I were Kurtley, be completely and absolutely mortified if Di found out about the text. I do not find that hard to grasp. For all we might bag our workmate, and maybe even actually hate him, that does not always equate to pleasure if he found out about it.

All this noble talk at times about 'no I am different, I would never make a comment about that in the first place' I call complete bullshit on. What I completely accept however is that you would never say it to the person out of basic human decency, even if you said it behind their back. And I understand how distraught you would be if the person found out how you felt.

Would we be still disbelieving kurtley when he said how upset he was she found out if it was not HIS clumsiness or stupidity that sent the text to her, but someone else sent it? That too backs up my thoughts that it cannot be harrassment as it again re-inforces that it was never intended to go to her.

Call him an arsehole for his action if you want, your call. But it ain't harrassment sexual or otherwise.

It certainly highlights another basic human facet, vigilantilism. All based on prior decisions, and all of that founded on rumour and innuendo for some weeks earlier.

For mine, it simply re-inforces 'thank god we have a legal system'. Yes, I am damned sure it ain't perfect, too right it probably fucks up badly and often, but by jesus imagine how we would go if we did not have it eh?

Ok, grumble and rumble about the leniancy, have your little points of disagreement wherever you want. But accept that a qualified, external, independent judge with assistants viewing data and facts we know nothing about assessed and came to a decision.

What point is there in going thru this if 'we will only accept what we want and reject what we don't like?' How does that even work? WHICH party will we apply that rule to?

Which IS why we use impartial people in these things. Which of us here would be able to call themselves impartial on this topic?
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
Nobody has crucified Beale for anything that he hasn't done. Pull your head in. Tribunal found him guilty of sending an offensive text on Friday. Remember?

As is usual TWAS you completely misread the point of a post. People keep going on about things which are raised in the media which prove their is misinformation or lack of (conveniently) having all the facts.

Point is proved that Beale did not send second text and been through a process. So why don't you actually clear your head of your narrow views and the world and open up your eyes instead of just posting your one dimensional views...
 

Brumby Runner

Jason Little (69)
Except for being drunk
And sending the second text

There certainly were assumptions made that Beale had sent both offending texts. The decision of the tribunal seems to be that he definitely sent the first offensive text but they were not able to determine who had sent the second, more offensive message and image. A bit like the French "not proven" verdict perhaps?

There are apparently two other options. First, the second text was sent by an un-named or unidentified source, or otherwise it was fabricated. The implication of the fabricated line seems to be that it must have been fabricated by Di Patston or someone near her. Unless the tribunal held the view and published it as a finding, then the fabrication story is really just as much speculation and wild accusation as any of the matters for which fingers were pointed at Beale.

I am of the view that the punishment didn't match the offence, but there are still a lot of unanswered matters that could implicate others in the Wallaby camp or might cause doubt to arise over Link's and Di Patston's roles. So, moving on, I am pleased that at least for the moment, Beale has not been included in the EOYT, and I would not be unhappy if the contract deal being offered by the ARU causes him to decide to go elsewhere next year. I really don't think he justifies a spot in the Wallabies on the basis of form, disregarding everything else. There are better options available at both 10 and 12.

I would like to see the matter of the second text cleared up.
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
Mate you're making out the media like its a soulless entity completely controlled by one evil megalomaniac old guy who can push what ever agenda he wants as long as he can continue his personal cash flow.

Dctarget....

I guess I am showing have fairly dim view of certain sections of media - don't hide from that for a minute.

In certain quarters (trash journalism) there appears to be more interest in selling a story then getting facts right....

I don't for one minute condone what Beale done but also believe in fair due process....media in certain quarters doesn't seem to play by these rules and creates a unhealthy frenzy....
 

Ash

Michael Lynagh (62)
Someone calling Rebecca Wilson a balanced journalist?

Somewhere thousands of league fans are laughing hysterically.

Read much of Wilson's work? She's a cheap rumour mongerer that takes any side that will get her column read, often with factual errors. There's been threads on league forums denigrating her work.
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
As is usual TWAS you completely misread the point of a post. People keep going on about things which are raised in the media which prove their is misinformation or lack of (conveniently) having all the facts.

Point is proved that Beale did not send second text and been through a process. So why don't you actually clear your head of your narrow views and the world and open up your eyes instead of just posting your one dimensional views.

No. We just can't understand how those supporting Beale can see any difference in the offensive nature of either text.

And more so how they have claimed he didn't send it, yet not be compelled to advise who did.

If you think that one message was less offensive than the other perhaps you need to open your eyes and change your one dimensional views.
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
Okay, I've read this article and all it has done has further enforced two view points:

1) Beale should be sacked
2) Pulver has handled this poorly

Agree this could have been handled better....including events going back to June....

Seen what goes on in league.....and punishments handed out there...like a guy defecating in a hotel corridoer....or seen what some of punishments handed out to some of AFL players and there behaviour.

My point is I guess is would you expect a different result if same had happened in league or AFL?
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
No. We just can't understand how those supporting Beale can see any difference in the offensive nature of either text.

And more so how they have claimed he didn't send it, yet not be compelled to advise who did.

If you think that one message was less offensive than the other perhaps you need to open your eyes and change your one dimensional views.

TWAS you seem to ignore rightly or wrongly that this matter had to some degree on first text been dealth with at personal level with person concerned and is why he ended up with $45k fine.

Point is after first text if he had resent a second text he should have been gone (as that would be showing no serious remorse) and if you can't see the difference and seriousness of that then we beg to differ.

It was a very bad error of judgement (and not acceptable behaviour) to send first text, and accordingly should be punished - and has been. But if you look at other goings on in other sports is it really enough to have contract terminated when appears to be evidence was resolved with person concerned. But that's point don't have all the facts - tribunal would have much more detail on this then you and I.

If you can't see after apologising and resolving with person concerned about first text it would be much more serious if he had repeated his first mistake of resending the text, I would hate for you to be judge on any trial of a young person who made a mistake like this.
 

Rugbynutter39

Michael Lynagh (62)
Someone calling Rebecca Wilson a balanced journalist?

Somewhere thousands of league fans are laughing hysterically.

Read much of Wilson's work? She's a cheap rumour mongerer that takes any side that will get her column read, often with factual errors. There's been threads on league forums denigrating her work.

Fair comment....careful what you read in media I guess
 
T

Train Without a Station

Guest
Unless I've read this wrong I fail to see how sending the first not the second one is showing remorse? That was only shown once he was essentially "caught".

Anyway, remorse would have been shown if after the assault charge, assaulting his captain, then drinking whilst on a alcohol ban, by staying out of trouble.
 

Dctarget

Tim Horan (67)
Dctarget..

I guess I am showing have fairly dim view of certain sections of media - don't hide from that for a minute.

In certain quarters (trash journalism) there appears to be more interest in selling a story then getting facts right..

I don't for one minute condone what Beale done but also believe in fair due process..media in certain quarters doesn't seem to play by these rules and creates a unhealthy frenzy..
Haha don't worry I agree with you! I was attempting an (obviously not very funny) joke. I agree with all your points above wholeheartedly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top