Why oh why Tuilagi!....... BREAKING NEWS!

First topic message reminder :

Well that makes the midfield pairing debate easier...............................

http://www.espn.co.uk/rugby/story/_/id/12891571/manu-tuilagi-world-cup-assault-charge

TightHEAD wrote:Who needs Manu when you have JJ to unlock defences?

And of course Manu could never have managed what JJ did today with 14 team mates outplaying their opponents? You're free to take a completely simplistic view of the sport if you wish but I won't be following suit.

Sorry Gwlad but I'm not even gonna bother reading your crap above, I have no problem talking to posters who I disagree with (like Beshocked) but you're here for nothing other than a wind up. I'm sure it was a great read though

No, I don't think he could have done. JJ is on fire

JJ is a much better playmaker and team player than Manu.

Well I bow down to superior knowledge and people who can make definitive statements despite all the variables.

Rugby can at times be a very simple game, create a gap and turn on the after burners, prettier to watch too instead of just bosh bash bosh.

TightHEAD wrote:Rugby can at times be a very simple game, create a gap and turn on the after burners, prettier to watch too instead of just bosh bash bosh.

Well with the quickest acceleration on the team in the dim and distant times when Manu was playing he did manage to score a lot of tries by doing just that. He also scored more than his fair share of interception tries which isnt bad for a someone who is only a bosh merchant

Gwlad wrote:

lostinwales wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Who's saying there's no problem with what he's done? Think Jimpy summed it up best '(and i'll give you a clue, to determine if someone's psyche is flawed, you would need to be a psychologist and have conducted a detailed psychiatric investigation).'

I'd happily insult the PM to his face.

Well guess what, I have a BA (Hons) in Psychology

And guess what else, a Psychologist DOES NOT CONDUCT PSYCHIATRIC INVESTIGATIONS! That would be done by a….wait for it……PSYCHIATRIST.  

If it is true that you have such a micky mouse degree then you probably like mind games, which explains a great deal

 Did you deduce that from one of your pop Psychology books or from studying Mens Health?

And btw, Mickey has an E in it.

My mistake - just goes to show how much more you know about such degrees than me. Oh and Mens Health is much too advanced for me. I only knoe soo much cos of wot I rid on the internet...

Looks like someone needs to remind him!

Fuzzy Dunlop wrote:Well I bow down to superior knowledge and people who can make definitive statements despite all the variables.

Despite what variables exactly? Based on the evidence provided by both players (which is quite clearly all we can go by) Manu Tuilagi is a more powerful and direct running option. His awareness and decision making have always been questionable. On the other hand, the playmaking ability and awareness of JJ has been evidently very good and something that England has been missing across their back line. Plus he can beat just as many defenders with his great footwork.

Something tells me the variables you are talking about are fantasy, formed by the unfortunately long absence of Manu.

.

So Gwlad, was Jason Robinson a world class player ?

Steve_rugby wrote:So Gwlad, was Jason Robinson a world class player ?

You'll be lucky.....

Steve_rugby wrote:So Gwlad, was Jason Robinson a world class player ?

Not just him or just England players ...

http://intheloose.com/2014/09/22/new-zealand-rugby-hall-shame/

Steve_rugby wrote:So Gwlad, was Jason Robinson a world class player ?

From that famous 2003 team, I would say that 13 of the starting 15 were world class,and we are unlikely to see a pack as a unit from 1 to 8 as good as that England pack again in our lifetime.

Gooseberry wrote:

Steve_rugby wrote:So Gwlad, was Jason Robinson a world class player ?

Not just him or just England players ...

http://intheloose.com/2014/09/22/new-zealand-rugby-hall-shame/

No world class players in that list though.

GeordieFalcon wrote:1) I say again it was a daft carry on that even the PM had a laugh at

beshocked wrote:1) Daft carry on which was unnecessary. In isolation it's not that important but it all adds up

This conversation is in regards to the "Bunny Ears" incident at Downing Street

It is not an isolated incident. He also did it to actor Daniel Craig the Lions dressing room after the third and victorious test:



The guy is a grade A clown and while drunken stuff does happen when you cannot even show a bit of respect when you are sober it all adds up

When did bunny ears become equivalent to assault?

America is very respectful of its institutions but you didn't hear anything like the indignation on this thread after this incident.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2382305/Behind-Mr-President-UConns-female-basketball-players-Obama-BUNNY-EARS-ceremony-honoring-championship-win.html

The girls involved didn't apologize, and anyone who did take offence at their prank was regarded as a bit of a crank.

There are some serious chips on shoulders on this thread. Steffan and Co really ought to get a life.

Serial 'bunny ear' abuse. The man must be deranged. Lock him up!!

Steffan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:1) I say again it was a daft carry on that even the PM had a laugh at

beshocked wrote:1) Daft carry on which was unnecessary. In isolation it's not that important but it all adds up

This conversation is in regards to the "Bunny Ears" incident at Downing Street

It is not an isolated incident. He also did it to actor Daniel Craig the Lions dressing room after the third and victorious test:



The guy is a grade A clown and while drunken stuff does happen when you cannot even show a bit of respect when you are sober it all adds up

Dear god it just gets worse and worse.

Are you part of the PC / Human Rights Brigade aswell.....

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Steffan wrote:

GeordieFalcon wrote:1) I say again it was a daft carry on that even the PM had a laugh at

beshocked wrote:1) Daft carry on which was unnecessary. In isolation it's not that important but it all adds up

This conversation is in regards to the "Bunny Ears" incident at Downing Street

It is not an isolated incident. He also did it to actor Daniel Craig the Lions dressing room after the third and victorious test:



The guy is a grade A clown and while drunken stuff does happen when you cannot even show a bit of respect when you are sober it all adds up

Dear god it just gets worse and worse.

Are you part of the PC / Human Rights Brigade window lickers union aswell.....

Fixed that for you...

class Jimpy....

Why do I have a chip on my shoulder and why am I a window licker. Even members of the English public agree the Bunny Ears was stupid. It's not the worst thing you can do but even if it was a Welsh player I would still be embarrassed. And just because you do not agree with my attitude does not mean you have to throw out petty insults Geordie and Jimpy (you big tough internet hardmen you)

Doing bunny ears behind someones head at my school meant you had an insult in your direction saying you fancied that person. Very mature I know, but did anyone else have that?

I think it was regarded as such a poncey thing to do that it was ridiculed rather quickly.

Steffan wrote: does not mean you have to throw out petty insults Geordie and Jimpy (you big tough internet hardmen you)

Steffan wrote:The guy is a grade A clown

Pot kettle black.

MichaelT wrote:Doing bunny ears behind someones head at my school meant you had an insult in your direction saying you fancied that person. Very mature I know, but did anyone else have that?

I think it was regarded as such a poncey thing to do that it was ridiculed rather quickly.

So you reckon Tuilagi fancies Daniel Craig and David Cameron then?

Steffan wrote:...Even members of the English public agree the Bunny Ears was stupid....

In this thread, however, the incident has been used to call into question Tuilagi's mental health. It's also been cited as confirmation of behavioural problems which led inevitably towards his assault conviction.

On that reasoning, those two girls doing bunny ears behind Obama needed immediate therapy, and the fact they didn't get any, means they must be ticking timebombs.

Steffan wrote:

MichaelT wrote:Doing bunny ears behind someones head at my school meant you had an insult in your direction saying you fancied that person. Very mature I know, but did anyone else have that?

I think it was regarded as such a poncey thing to do that it was ridiculed rather quickly.

So you reckon Tuilagi fancies Daniel Craig and David Cameron then?

If all three were at my school that's what would have been thrown at him.

That wasn't the point of my post but nevermind.

[quote="Steffan"]Why do I have a chip on my shoulder and why am I a window licker. Even members of the English public agree the Bunny Ears was stupid. It's not the worst thing you can do but even if it was a Welsh player I would still be embarrassed. And just because you do not agree with my attitude does not mean you have to throw out petty insults Geordie and Jimpy (you big tough internet hardmen you)[/quote]

Ok fair enough i shouldn't be insulting...but I just find it crazy how people have raised this up.

Ill not say any more on it as i think my opinion is clear.

GeordieFalcon wrote:

Steffan wrote:Why do I have a chip on my shoulder and why am I a window licker. Even members of the English public agree the Bunny Ears was stupid. It's not the worst thing you can do but even if it was a Welsh player I would still be embarrassed. And just because you do not agree with my attitude does not mean you have to throw out petty insults Geordie and Jimpy (you big tough internet hardmen you)[/quote]

Ok fair enough i shouldn't be insulting...but I just find it crazy how people have raised this up.

Ill not say any more on it as i think my opinion is clear.

You were not insulting. He took umbrage at being confronted with the uncomfortable truth.

Tuilagi really has no class at least off the pitch.

Stands in the dock and pleads guilty to an offense so it will go away, then comes out and says he lied in the dock and didn't assault the Police.

Just how stupid is he and is he not going any advice?

He doesn't understand what assault is. I read the quotes. He thinks its not an assault because he didn't punch them. assault is any unauthorised touching. His brief understood this, he does not. I don't think he is the sharpest tack in the box

Gwlad wrote:

Just how stupid is he and is he not going any advice?

Yes thats his complaint, that he was told to plead guilty ad it would go away by his lawyers



That aside I can imagine "Jonah From Tonga " is a it too close to the bone for him to watch

Gooseberry wrote:

Gwlad wrote:

Just how stupid is he and is he not going any advice?

Yes thats his complaint, that he was told to plead guilty ad it would go away by his lawyers



That aside I can imagine "Jonah From Tonga " is a it too close to the bone for him to watch

he wasn't told that, trust me.

He may have been advised that they had a compelling case i.e. evince form police/witnesses and he would be found guilty at crown and that an early plea would alleviate the severity of the sentence/fine. He would have been advised he would plead guilty to a criminal offense and then the court would sentence him and he would have a criminal record. He would have been told that if he did not want to plead guilty because he had not done it he could opt to go to Crown for trial by jury

He was not told, say you did it son and it goes away

He is the worst kind of person who does something and then blames others for the consequences.

TJ wrote:He doesn't understand what assault is.  I read the quotes.  He thinks its not an assault because he didn't punch them.  assault is any unauthorised touching.  His brief understood this, he does not.  I don't think he is the sharpest tack in the box

He pushes people for a living so perhaps he's a little confused that pushing female police officers is now considered assault. I think he needs a few lessons from Fr. Ted: "These cows are small, but the ones out there are far away"

Any deliberate contact without permission is assault and always has been. Even putting people in fear of being touched can be assault. This is what the law is.

Most folk think for it to be an assault there must be a punch or similar - not true.

I do personally think the term 'assault' is a little over-cooked in legal terms...but if Manu pushed police officers, then yeah, that's dangerously provocative both to the individuals but even more so to what they represent. And he's dumb if he ever felt anyone would just pretend that never happened.

The threshold for assault police is very very low for obvious reasons, dded to that an international 100 plus kg rugby player v a female officer isn't going to look good to a jury, added to that i believe he assaulted a taxi driver too.

You just dont touch a cop, unless you're an idiot.

All muscle and no brains sadly, there have been far too many incidents in his short career already. Jumping off a ferry, punching Ashton so blatantly, getting convicted of assaulting female police officers. Shame really but there really does seem to be something very wrong in his thinking.

He probably needs to think about not getting caught.

aucklandlaurie wrote:He probably needs to think about not getting caught.

Really????????

My understanding is the He Tualaghi pleaded Guilty to the charges.

But then when he said he was innocentent

What i was meaning to say is why would he plead guilty if he his not guilty.

Something does not sit right with me on this.

majesticimperialman wrote:What i was meaning to say is why would he plead guilty if he his not guilty.

Something does not sit right with me on this.

if you admit guilt at the first opportunity then there is no trial and the court acknowledges the admission by vein lenient- assaulting cops is a serious offense.

The guy is so thick he thought there were no consequences of his actions and no consequences for pleading guilty. He now has a criminal record, lets hope that there isn't a RWC in the USA or he will self deselect.

Maybe it was a case of pleading Guilty, yet disputing the facts, its something that happens quite regularly in this part of the World.

aucklandlaurie wrote:
Maybe it was a case of pleading Guilty, yet disputing the facts, its something that happens quite regularly in this part of the World.

Magistrate: (actually court clerk usually but going for dramatic effect) Mr Tuilagi, you have been charged that on date and time you assaulted police contrary to x act. how do you plead. Guilty or not guilty
Manu: Guilty

No equivocation is invited or entertained at the time of pleads.

Disputing the facts is not a plea.

aucklandlaurie wrote:Disputing the facts is not a plea.

You're quick i'll give you that, you don't dispute the facts when pleading guilty. All those arguments are decided before the pleas hearing. Got it?

Im not sure what you mean by a "pleas hearing"? do you mean an appearance when the defendant is charged, and enters a Plea?

Laurie

In the UK a defendant is charged in the Police station

They are bailed from there to a magistrate unless indictable only to Crown court

At Mag court they can plead guilty at the first opportunity to accrue benefit on sentence or opt to plead not guilty and go for summary trail by bench of 3 or to go to Crwon for triable either way

A plea is a plea, there is no mitigation at plea time. Guilty or not.