: Wed Apr 29, 2009 3:59 pm  

Big Graeme wrote:

Really? There are quite a few players who were drinking in the last saloon before they signed for us either on loan or permanently, Richard Moore for one springs to mind. In fact we have been pretty bad at turning players who have the talent around, Timu, Hammond, Harmono amongst others all did well for the club when others would have left well alone.

Not so much in recent times. At one recent forum and I can't remember who said it it was stated that the club did lot of research on potential players.

: Wed Apr 29, 2009 4:32 pm  

YES

: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:25 pm  

Not so much in recent times. At one recent forum and I can't remember who said it it was stated that the club did lot of research on potential players.

I think the forgot the can he play rugby part of the process with Nanyn. Maybe he just sees us as a southern branch of weight watchers

As long as he behaves he will do us

: Wed Apr 29, 2009 6:41 pm  

Paddock Punter wrote:

Not so much in recent times. At one recent forum and I can't remember who said it it was stated that the club did lot of research on potential players.

Oh aye but be do still shop in the scratch and dent aisle, how many clubs (Widnes fans apart) do you think were sniffing around Marty when we signed him.

: Wed Apr 29, 2009 8:43 pm  

Wasn't Danny Ward seen as a wrong'un before he came here?

: Wed Apr 29, 2009 9:00 pm  

gutterfax wrote: WHY OH WHY OH WHY.......can't you leave factless posts alone without throwing your OH SO OH SO OH accurate oar in Still say "stella boy" would be surplus to requirements Whats your prob gutters?? A few facts never hurt anyone

gutterfax wrote: WHY OH WHY OH WHY.......can't you leave factless posts alone without throwing your OH SO OH SO OH accurate oar in Still say "stella boy" would be surplus to requirements Whats your prob gutters?? A few facts never hurt anyone

: Thu Apr 30, 2009 7:53 am  

dotti wrote:

Whats your prob gutters?? A few facts never hurt anyone

I dunno, the hurt Jonathan Aitken and Jeffrey Archer quite badly.

: Thu Apr 30, 2009 10:51 am  

If he was fit he'd be a useful addition to our squad, on form he's a cut above quite a few of our backs.

I don't believe in hitting women, and I'm not justifying what he did, however, from reading the press reports there is no indication that he actually did hit his wife, the press reports say he assaulted her by grabbing her arm. From my hazy memories of studying GCSE law the popular public perception of the term assault and the legal definition of assault are somewhat different; to the public assault brings up images of beating someone up, whereas in legal terms that's more likely to be covered by battery, ABH, GDH etc...

: Thu Apr 30, 2009 11:02 am  

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

If he was fit he'd be a useful addition to our squad, on form he's a cut above quite a few of our backs.

I don't believe in hitting women, and I'm not justifying what he did, however, from reading the press reports there is no indication that he actually did hit his wife, the press reports say he assaulted her by grabbing her arm. From my hazy memories of studying GCSE law the popular public perception of the term assault and the legal definition of assault are somewhat different; to the public assault brings up images of beating someone up, whereas in legal terms that's more likely to be covered by battery, ABH, GDH etc...

In the eyes of the law he is guilty of having assaulted his wife.
Harlequins RL have a stated aim of getting more families to the stoop..........ergo, don't go anywhere near him.

: Thu Apr 30, 2009 2:55 pm  

gutterfax wrote:

In the eyes of the law he is guilty of having assaulted his wife.
Harlequins RL have a stated aim of getting more families to the stoop..........ergo, don't go anywhere near him.

Assaulted would mean he didn't touch her, iirc.
He would be guilty of Common Assault, (Assault and Battery). Battery could be seen as much as a push.