: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:11 am  

Irregs #16 wrote:

I think the difference is that Bird is currently involved with the trial process whereas Crocker was fined approx £90 for affray, and applied online without all the testimonies from MP's, Melbourne, and Hull FC's plans for him in the local community

Fingers Crossed Though!

As a role model? The mind boggles.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:13 am  

debaser wrote:

As a role model? The mind boggles.

Reformed character according to Melbourne, plus it was 3/4 years ago who's to say he hasnt changed. Thats the reason he moved to Melbourne, to get away from the nightlife in Sydney

He wont have that problem in Hull!

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:15 am  

DISA wrote:

And you wonder why you are struggling?

No, not at all. I see all the games and "wondering" don't enter into it.

DISA wrote:

.. You do not have a strong pack, ... And Tadulala is not a very decent winger.

See, IMHO, there really is no point in attempting to "debate" with someone whose points of view are so obviously silly.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:21 am  

Irregs #16 wrote:

Reformed character according to Melbourne, plus it was 3/4 years ago who's to say he hasnt changed. Thats the reason he moved to Melbourne, to get away from the nightlife in Sydney

He wont have that problem in Hull!

So a convicted criminal will be allowed in, yet an innocent man is not? Except every other weekend, when he is apparently ok to come in for a bit.
The system is too bizarre for words.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:25 am  

debaser wrote:

So a convicted criminal will be allowed in, yet an innocent man is not? Except every other weekend, when he is apparently ok to come in for a bit.
The system is too bizarre for words.

Bit harsh when he only got a £90 fine. You get more for letting your dog 5hit in public!!

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:27 am  

Irregs #16 wrote:

Bit harsh when he only got a £90 fine. You get more for letting your dog 5hit in public!!

Still guilty, unlike Bird.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:53 am  

debaser wrote:

So a convicted criminal will be allowed in, yet an innocent man is not? Except every other weekend, when he is apparently ok to come in for a bit.
The system is too bizarre for words.

[Kosh]

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 11:55 am  

debaser wrote:

Still guilty, unlike Bird.

Irrelevant, apparently. It seems that all that matters is the opinion of some daft bint in the consulate in Canberra.

: Mon Mar 16, 2009 12:14 pm  

Kosh wrote:

Irrelevant, apparently. It seems that all that matters is the opinion of some daft bint in the consulate in Canberra.

Would this be Sharon Ewart?