The Greenhouse

Seiffert82 wrote: ↑December 4, 2020, 12:36 pm "Don't resist mate, don't resist!" they implore the sleeping body as they handcuff his limp wrists, and try to completely disorient him with blinding lights straight into his face. The tazer to keep the completely inebriated and half asleep person under control was just the icing on the cake.

heroic work there from the NSW police force. Keeping the streets safe.

I just hope Scott learns to stay clear of these situations in the future.

It's the NSW Police version of Steve Irwin's "It's alright fella..." before pouncing on a Croc and hogtieing it

Fuifui Bradbrad wrote: ↑December 4, 2020, 12:41 pm

Seiffert82 wrote: ↑December 4, 2020, 12:36 pm "Don't resist mate, don't resist!" they implore the sleeping body as they handcuff his limp wrists, and try to completely disorient him with blinding lights straight into his face. The tazer to keep the completely inebriated and half asleep person under control was just the icing on the cake.

heroic work there from the NSW police force. Keeping the streets safe.

I just hope Scott learns to stay clear of these situations in the future.

It's the NSW Police version of Steve Irwin's "It's alright fella..." before pouncing on a Croc and hogtieing it

Haha, exactly. Both captured on film for good effect.

Thankfully for Irwin, crocodiles don't have competent lawyers.

Firstly I am still shocked by that footage, and I was on Curtis' side all along!

2ndly I'm not sure how much Curtis will need to do for this, I would guess its all in the hands of his lawyer. Curtis may not even have to attend court, just say yes in a few emails.
So it shouldn't be a distraction at all

cat wrote:Firstly I am still shocked by that footage, and I was on Curtis' side all along!

No offence cat, but when your position is that you back the Raider unless you personally saw them commit 5 murders, it’s hard to get much credit here

Tom’s turn now


Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse

Oh no

gangrenous wrote:

cat wrote:Firstly I am still shocked by that footage, and I was on Curtis' side all along!

No offence cat, but when your position is that you back the Raider unless you personally saw them commit 5 murders, it’s hard to get much credit here

Hahaha yeah, my thoughts exactly

Even a broken clock is wrong twice a day

**** .....We are screwed now if Hodgo does his knee again

The Nickman wrote:

gangrenous wrote:

cat wrote:Firstly I am still shocked by that footage, and I was on Curtis' side all along!

No offence cat, but when your position is that you back the Raider unless you personally saw them commit 5 murders, it’s hard to get much credit here

Hahaha yeah, my thoughts exactly

Even a broken clock is wrong twice a day

Raider: "I did it. I killed the beep. I grabbed beep beep beep and then I beep beep. Then I left the beep in a shallow grave"

Cat: "It's a media beat up engineered by the NRL"

Dr Zaius wrote:

The Nickman wrote:

gangrenous wrote:

cat wrote:Firstly I am still shocked by that footage, and I was on Curtis' side all along!

No offence cat, but when your position is that you back the Raider unless you personally saw them commit 5 murders, it’s hard to get much credit here

Hahaha yeah, my thoughts exactly

Even a broken clock is wrong twice a day

Raider: "I did it. I killed the beep. I grabbed beep beep beep and then I beep beep. Then I left the beep in a shallow grave"

Cat: "It's a media beat up engineered by the NRL"

A month later he quits the Raiders and sensationally signs with the Roosters

cat: they should throw the book at him, we have no place for grubs like that in the NRL

The Nickman wrote:

Dr Zaius wrote:

The Nickman wrote:

gangrenous wrote:

cat wrote:Firstly I am still shocked by that footage, and I was on Curtis' side all along!

No offence cat, but when your position is that you back the Raider unless you personally saw them commit 5 murders, it’s hard to get much credit here

Hahaha yeah, my thoughts exactly

Even a broken clock is wrong twice a day

Raider: "I did it. I killed the beep. I grabbed beep beep beep and then I beep beep. Then I left the beep in a shallow grave"

Cat: "It's a media beat up engineered by the NRL"

A month later he quits the Raiders and sensationally signs with the Roosters

cat: they should throw the book at him, we have no place for grubs like that in the NRL

Nailed it

The Nickman wrote: ↑December 6, 2020, 1:09 pm

Dr Zaius wrote:

The Nickman wrote:

gangrenous wrote:

cat wrote:Firstly I am still shocked by that footage, and I was on Curtis' side all along!

No offence cat, but when your position is that you back the Raider unless you personally saw them commit 5 murders, it’s hard to get much credit here

Hahaha yeah, my thoughts exactly

Even a broken clock is wrong twice a day

Raider: "I did it. I killed the beep. I grabbed beep beep beep and then I beep beep. Then I left the beep in a shallow grave"

Cat: "It's a media beat up engineered by the NRL"

A month later he quits the Raiders and sensationally signs with the Roosters

cat: they should throw the book at him, we have no place for grubs like that in the NRL

this reads too accurately for this forum

@TheGHRaiders on Twitter

PODCAST: Brett Finch speaks to Canberra Raiders centre Curtis Scott - about his time with the Storm, his move to the Green Machine and the dramas of 2020. #NRL #WeAreRaiders #ICYMI

https://traffic.libsyn.com/secure/brett ... ott_01.mp3

Scumbag filter been disabled then?

think it was sadly removed many years ago

Canberra Raiders' centre Curtis Scott Scott is still carrying scars from NSW Police ordeal

Canberra Raiders centre Curtis Scott is still carrying scars from his horrifying unlawful arrest following Australia Day celebrations, which is why his lawyer thinks he deserves $400,000 in damages.

"Definitely going ahead next year. It's up to the court what they decide in due course," his lawyer Same Macedone said. "My opinion is he should get around $400,000, but it's not up to me."

Read more: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/ ... /?cs=14239

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nrl-pr ... 1ff785e6e2

https://www.smh.com.au/sport/nrl/curtis ... 56pla.html

https://wwos.nine.com.au/nrl/curtis-sco ... cial-NRLFS

I still can’t believe what the footage showed. Amazing the police fought the case for so long.

NSW Police ordered to pay $100,000 in costs to NRL star Curtis Scott after 'terrifying' Sydney arrest

A Sydney magistrate has hit NSW Police with a $100,000 legal bill over the "terrifying" arrest of NRL player Curtis Scott in January.

Scott, who plays for Canberra Raiders, was charged with multiple offences including assaulting police and resisting arrest after he was found sleeping at Moore Park early on January 27.

Read more: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-09-25/ ... t/12702080

Wow. That ABC article really gets to the heart of the issue.

Not sure how the NRL can try to slap on a $15000 fine (suspended or not).

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

gergreg wrote: ↑February 19, 2021, 1:13 pm Not sure how the NRL can try to slap on a $15000 fine (suspended or not).

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

He was blind drunk and carrying on like a goose- throwing phones at taxis prior to falling asleep.
I have no problem with NRL fining someone for that.

It just doesn't also allow police to act like thugs who are allowed to punish (beat up) as they see fit. They are supposed to protect the public- courts are the only ones allowed to mete out punishment.

That story was from back in September, so no fine for Curtis (suspended). Still waiting on the additional legal case for damages I believe.

greeneyed wrote:That story was from back in September, so no fine for Curtis (suspended). Still waiting on the additional legal case for damages I believe.

We need Facebook to ensure we get the latest news not old stories!

BadnMean wrote: ↑February 19, 2021, 1:25 pm

gergreg wrote: ↑February 19, 2021, 1:13 pm Not sure how the NRL can try to slap on a $15000 fine (suspended or not).

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

He was blind drunk and carrying on like a goose- throwing phones at taxis prior to falling asleep.
I have no problem with NRL fining someone for that.

It just doesn't also allow police to act like thugs who are allowed to punish (beat up) as they see fit. They are supposed to protect the public- courts are the only ones allowed to mete out punishment.

Yep, Scott still had a few things to answer for that night.

The issue here is that the police clearly went to town on him in a defenceless state. The police force and the responsible officers should absolutely be held accountable.

BadnMean wrote:

gergreg wrote: ↑February 19, 2021, 1:13 pm Not sure how the NRL can try to slap on a $15000 fine (suspended or not).

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

He was blind drunk and carrying on like a goose- throwing phones at taxis prior to falling asleep.
I have no problem with NRL fining someone for that.

It just doesn't also allow police to act like thugs who are allowed to punish (beat up) as they see fit. They are supposed to protect the public- courts are the only ones allowed to mete out punishment.

Yet a bloke who smashes down lines of coke the night before a grand final - while still meant to be in a covid bubble gets a lighter punishment?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I'm with Greg. this kid has been through enough. Had either the police or the prosecution done their jobs properly none of this would have ever seen the light of day. It's in everyone's interests of we just moved on from this sorry affair

gergreg wrote: ↑February 19, 2021, 8:11 pm

BadnMean wrote:

gergreg wrote: ↑February 19, 2021, 1:13 pm Not sure how the NRL can try to slap on a $15000 fine (suspended or not).

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

He was blind drunk and carrying on like a goose- throwing phones at taxis prior to falling asleep.
I have no problem with NRL fining someone for that.

It just doesn't also allow police to act like thugs who are allowed to punish (beat up) as they see fit. They are supposed to protect the public- courts are the only ones allowed to mete out punishment.

Yet a bloke who smashes down lines of coke the night before a grand final - while still meant to be in a covid bubble gets a lighter punishment?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

Naden is a bit of a "what about" type aside though. I'm not about to argue that the NRL is consistent. Maybe they have goofed on Naden or taken another road for whatever reason.

Doesn't sway me from thinking the NRL can reasonably impose a suspended fine on an NRL player who carries on like Scott did prior to his arrest. If a player from another club was seen kicking the crap out of someone's bicycle, raging around the street swearing at cars and throwing his phone at a moving taxi- and the NRL put a suspended fine on the bloke for that I wouldn't bat an eyelid. If they gave him a week I'd probably have thought fair enough.

That he did the above wasn't in dispute. What happened to him afterward was just horrible and absolutely shameful from start to finish for the NSW police. I think we should all be hopping mad about it.

But by still acknowledging his prior behaviour was also not acceptable and we don't want our players being out of line/borderline violent (kicking crap out of said bike) or dangerous (throwing things at cars while they drive) I actually DO think that's a fairly responsible stance. And that it stands the NRL in good stead should they ever need to reprimand a player for doing similar in the future. I also think it was good judgement and fair overall to suspend the fine so CUrtis isn't punished further by this if he can just keep his nose clean (Naden pun intended).

So what sort of penalty should the NRL dish out to Starling?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

None

I thought the court case showed the person the cab driver complained about may not have been Curtis at all or at the very least the cab driver may have over egged the events.

gangrenous wrote:None

Sorry I wanted badandmeans hot take on this one. Clearly the answer is 'none' for either player but can badandmean put aside his clear disdain for Curtis to concede this?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

gergreg wrote: ↑February 20, 2021, 9:18 am

gangrenous wrote:None

Sorry I wanted badandmeans hot take on this one. Clearly the answer is 'none' for either player but can badandmean put aside his clear disdain for Curtis to concede this?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I think you might be reading a bit much into what I've posted. I don't have any disdain for Curtis Scott. I don't think I posted anything disdainful about him as a person, apart from to say that kicking other peoples bikes and throwing phones at cars is silly stuff and worthy of a fine.

Starling is another "whataboutism".

Each case is different. My experiences with the Curtis Scott case made me come out and doubt the police version of the Starling case pretty quickly.

I don't know that Starling was behaving badly before his encounter with police. I haven't heard he was. If he was brawling in a bar, then yeah, I guess he'd be due a fine too.

You can bring up as many other scenarios as you like, but what's the point? I didn't know I was having an argument here, just I have a different opinion on a suspended fine for a but of drunken loutish behaviour being an ok precedent to set for a public brand like the NRL. To me it's seems more problematic not to set a (suspended) fine for that, for a sporting league.

But if you hold a different opinion I'm just fine with that (see what I did there?). Seems a relatively minor issue to me.

BadnMean wrote:

gergreg wrote: ↑February 20, 2021, 9:18 am

gangrenous wrote:None

Sorry I wanted badandmeans hot take on this one. Clearly the answer is 'none' for either player but can badandmean put aside his clear disdain for Curtis to concede this?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I think you might be reading a bit much into what I've posted. I don't have any disdain for Curtis Scott. I don't think I posted anything disdainful about him as a person, apart from to say that kicking other peoples bikes and throwing phones at cars is silly stuff and worthy of a fine.

Starling is another "whataboutism".

Each case is different. My experiences with the Curtis Scott case made me come out and doubt the police version of the Starling case pretty quickly.

I don't know that Starling was behaving badly before his encounter with police. I haven't heard he was. If he was brawling in a bar, then yeah, I guess he'd be due a fine too.

You can bring up as many other scenarios as you like, but what's the point? I didn't know I was having an argument here, just I have a different opinion on a suspended fine for a but of drunken loutish behaviour being an ok precedent to set for a public brand like the NRL. To me it's seems more problematic not to set a (suspended) fine for that, for a sporting league.

But if you hold a different opinion I'm just fine with that (see what I did there?). Seems a relatively minor issue to me.

You've been riding Curtis since day one. Interesting to read that you have given Starling the benefit of the doubt with his incident but haven't afforded the same for Curtis - despite both cases being thrown out of court and absolutely no proof of what occurred leading up to the police arriving on the scene for either case.

Part of the point I'm trying to make (and we are just expressing opinions here, not arguing) why should the Raiders be the the 'line in sand' moments where we accept punishment from the NRL, yet six months later the NRL punishes players with a feather.

Sure it is difficult to compare different incidents that these boofheads get themselves into but the NRL clearly needs to be better. I remember saying quite a few years ago that the NRL needs to have some clear guides on what sort of penalty applies to different incidents. Like I said it is difficult because everything is different but fans, clubs and players need something to help understand how these decisions/punishments are decided upon. I think they were heading in the right direction with the 'no fault' stand down but needed to go a bit further.

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

gergreg wrote:

gangrenous wrote:None

Sorry I wanted badandmeans hot take on this one. Clearly the answer is 'none' for either player but can badandmean put aside his clear disdain for Curtis to concede this?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I figured my hot take might suffice, since I agree on BadnMean on this one.

I don’t think there’s benefit of the doubt given to Starling and not Scott by BnM. Scott has behaviour that was unacceptable and unchallenged, separate to what followed. A punishment is reasonable (although takes into account that he’s already paid a heavy price with the resulting police brutality). It is a good move in consistency for the NRL to indicate what the punishment would have been in isolation.

Correct me if I am wrong but Starling has no ill behaviour that is currently unchallenged?

gangrenous wrote:

gergreg wrote:

gangrenous wrote:None

Sorry I wanted badandmeans hot take on this one. Clearly the answer is 'none' for either player but can badandmean put aside his clear disdain for Curtis to concede this?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk

I figured my hot take might suffice, since I agree on BadnMean on this one.

I don’t think there’s benefit of the doubt given to Starling and not Scott by BnM. Scott has behaviour that was unacceptable and unchallenged, separate to what followed. A punishment is reasonable (although takes into account that he’s already paid a heavy price with the resulting police brutality). It is a good move in consistency for the NRL to indicate what the punishment would have been in isolation.

Correct me if I am wrong but Starling has no ill behaviour that is currently unchallenged?

Scott's behavior/actions prior to the police arriving on the scene is unproven, the same as Starling. It appears that there may have been a fight which resulted in the police being called to the scene (in Starling's case), where they again over reacted. Is fighting in public a lesser crime than throwing a phone at a car?

Sent from my SM-G975F using Tapatalk