[Durham Giant]

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:13 am  

I think the OP has a point nothing said about these two idiots compared to Feka. It is definitely a conspiracy against Wigan and a further example of RL fans .com bias against the worlds greatest RL team.

.Yet more RL players bring the game into disrepute.

ban them both for life is what i say especially as they play for Wigans closest rivals.

In fact do not stop there i would ban all scrum halves that have long hair and names like Sean and red haired scouse props and ex Gb stars who have played in Australia and second rate Aussie centres.

then Wigan can take over the world again.

I really do think that some Wigan fans are getting a bit sensitive / paranoid.

When they get sentenced i and many others will have plenty to say. Do not worry i will be happy to slag off players from any Lancashire clubs ( and Ryan Bailey as well).

: Fri Mar 27, 2009 10:18 am  

Durham Giant wrote:

I think the OP has a point nothing said about these two idiots compared to Feka. It is definitely a conspiracy against Wigan and a further example of RL fans .com bias against the worlds greatest RL team.

.Yet more RL players bring the game into disrepute.

ban them both for life is what i say especially as they play for Wigans closest rivals.

In fact do not stop there i would ban all scrum halves that have long hair and names like Sean and red haired scouse props and ex Gb stars who have played in Australia and second rate Aussie centres.

then Wigan can take over the world again.
I really do think that some Wigan fans are getting a bit sensitive / paranoid.

When they get sentenced i and many others will have plenty to say. Do not worry i will be happy to slag off players from any Lancashire clubs ( and Ryan Bailey as well).

The Bit in Bold is just about spot on!

The rest, complete Drivel!

: Mon Mar 30, 2009 5:56 pm  

So Jamie Peacock can make a case for a non-custodial sentence and have it published in Sporting Life but the fans can't discuss? Am I missing something?

: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:03 pm  

Don't drop the soap lads

[DaveO]

: Mon Mar 30, 2009 6:11 pm  

alanpdodd wrote:

So Jamie Peacock can make a case for a non-custodial sentence and have it published in Sporting Life but the fans can't discuss? Am I missing something?

The law of sub judice applies to both the trial and cases being considered by the judge. So technically Peacock and the The Sporting Life could be considered in contempt of court for trying to influence the outcome of the judges deliberations .

They won't be though because he simply won't take any notice and won't consider it interference. He will not be basing his sentence on what Peacock or any fan says because he will have the brains to realise they are not impartial. It also isn't in anyone's interest to prosecute Peacock or the Sporting Life which is just common sense. Likewise any discussion or opinion one way or the other on what should happen to these players expressed on here won't have an impact on his deliberations either.

It is quite common when a judge states a custodial sentence is likely for this to be reported in the media and the consequences discussed.

As to Feka's case there was plenty of speculation what the outcome of his guilty plea would be both legally and for his status at the club.

Sometimes common sense goes out of the window.

Dave

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:27 pm  

alanpdodd wrote:

And the sub-justice thing is daft. Sub-justice is in to prevent members of a jury being swayed by media opinion. So in a case with no jury and with a judge who has already stated the a custodial outcome is likely where does a fans forum get to make any impact?

It could affect the judge's decision on sentencing. The rule applies all the way to sentencing. Even though they have pleaded guilty technically the law of innocent 'til proven guilty still stands.

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:28 pm  

hula89 wrote:

It could affect the judge's decision on sentencing. The rule applies all the way to sentencing. Even though they have pleaded guilty technically the law of innocent 'til proven guilty still stands.

As such we should lock Peacock up indefinitely for trying to influence the judge

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:31 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

As such we should lock Peacock up indefinitely for trying to influence the judge

I wouldn't complain!

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:47 pm  

What did I miss, what has Peacock done?

[DaveO]

: Tue Mar 31, 2009 12:48 pm  

hula89 wrote:

It could affect the judge's decision on sentencing. The rule applies all the way to sentencing. Even though they have pleaded guilty technically the law of innocent 'til proven guilty still stands.

Err... no, they are guilty end of. What still stands is the law of sub judice which says attempting to influence the judge is illegal.

So in theory Peacock and the Sporting Life are in for it. Except of course they won't be as no judge with an ounce of common sense or sanity will be influenced by that sporting life article nor for that matter anything written on here.

Dave