The Eunuch - Peter Fitzsimons

  • We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.

Phantar

Bencher
From today's SMH:

LET IT GO, DESSIE
Here is the hugely likeable Manly coach Des Hasler's comments on the suddenly ongoing - just when you thought it was gone - Brett Stewart debacle: "While Brett has been vindicated at court level, in Brett's mind and in his backyard, for want of being theatrical, his soul hasn't been cleansed because the game hasn't apologised to him." Des, bring it in tight. Love ya, but, in the first place, that quote makes our head hurt. And in the second place, while Stewart was not found guilty of sexual assault, he still comported himself in a manner whereby the reputation of the game was damaged. Someone at Manly - and I think it is you - has to knock a few heads together and say there is no upside for anyone in continually pulling the scab off this now eternally bleeding wound. Get on with the football.

My email to the testicularly challenged one. It includes an excerpt from recent 'Big Tip' piece:

Bring it in tight here Pete,

I know that you, like Gallop, are probably basing your argument against Stewart because of the deeply flawed report the Club submitted to the NRL which was based on hearsay at the time - not fact. Remember they were going through there own ructions at the Board level and the inaccurate report was one result of that.

Brett Stewart did not bring the game into disrepute. He was not drunk. He was not asked to leave the Manly Wharf Bar because he was intoxicated. No, he and the other players left because the Bar was reconfiguring for the evening trade at around 6.00 pm that night. Throughout Stewart's interview by police at Dee Why, he presented as sober and cooperative. He was not breathalised, because the police had no cause to believe he was drunk. This was all brought up during the court case. Unfortunately you and that other reputable journalist, Rebecca Wilson, still like to present this confection that he was so heavily drunk that he did not know what he was doing.

Funny that no one was presented by the prosecution as a witness to Stewart's apparent intoxication. Like all your 'mates' from Manly, one at least of whom you insisted heard Stewart cry 'let's get pissed!' at the Bar that night. Why didn't they come forward on behalf of the prosecution Peter? Where were the bar staff and manager from the Manly Wharf Bar during the court case to support the widely reported contention that he was 'asked to leave because he was intoxicated?' He caught a cab and went home Peter - he suffers from Type 2 Diabetes and knows not to drink to excess anyway.

Surely damning evidence that Stewart was wildly drunk would have supported the claim of sexual misconduct? I well remember an email exchange that I had with you more than two years ago that left me in no doubt that you believed Stewart guilty of the latter.

Here is an excerpt from a recent online piece:
Written by Andrew Grant, The Big Tip
Wednesday, 18 May 2011 13:06
This whole facade was thoroughly de-bunked in Brett Stewart’s court case last year. In her opinion piece Wilson describes Manly supporters as “insular and hateful”. Call us what you will but at least the Manly supporters site, Silvertails, had the decency to send one of their own to each and every minute of the two week court case so they could be appraised of the full picture (unlike those of Wilson’s ilk who vent their hateful ignorance on the general public of Western Sydney).

What Gallop, Wilson and Fitzsimons are side-stepping is extensive police testimony that is entirely contrary to the quotes above, the very hoary Daily Telegraph myths that are the debased foundation for the suspension meted out on Stewart.

Police officer after police officer taking the stand and under oath suggesting Stewart was “courteous”, “in-control”, “respectful” and “bemused at the charges” (and anyone who followed the full case was similarly bemused that this case based on the testimony of a mentally deranged girl and her fraudster father ever reached court in the first place).

All that is left is Gallop pointing to a Manly report on the night in question (prepared amidst the whiff of smoke and cordite that is the now apologised-for News Limited hysteria). Oh crime upon crimes, the report suggests Brett was asked to leave a premises. And I wonder how many other clubs, with a culture of player welfare and image management, aren’t guilty of this “crime” on a weekly basis?

From the get-go Manly’s management and board took a very different approach to Gallop on the issue of Stewart’s alleged intoxication. They wanted him to play football until he had his day in court (a privilege afforded every other NRL player who has faced charges). Gallop threw the book at Stewart, defamed him and stopped him “working” for four weeks.

The police testimony at the court case thoroughly vindicated the stance of the Manly Board and completely undermined that of the NRL. Rightful Peter Fitzsimons says? The only rightful thing to do here is to apologise methinks. Why is it so hard? Yes why Peter?

Which brings us back to Wilson and her perpetuation of myths, her revisionist approach to history in spite of court transcripts of testimony under oath that trash her stance. By re-hashing the falsehood of the past, and suggesting Stewart (and Manly) are petulant, surely she is guilty of the Australian definition of defamation “likely to cause ordinary, reasonable people to think less of the person about whom the words are published.”

I trust Brett has been on the phone to his lawyers over the weekend.

End of the 'Big Tip' excerpt.

There was more, but it deals specifically with Wilson. I think the last sentence above may be pertinent in your case however. Not sure how long the crumbling Fairfax empire will still be willing to shield you and your partner in crime Zavos from a potential defamation case? Although Spiro seems smart enough to keep his keyboard quiet on the subject these days. I note that Magnay and Duffy, two fellow Stewart defamers, have since left the crumbling edifice. How's the outsourced sub-editing working out? lol....

Please, if you do bother to respond, I don't want more of your 'upper case shouting' routine like I copped two years ago.

You were wrong then about Brett Stewart, which you more or less admitted to in a Saturday piece about two months ago. Unfortunately, perhaps in part because of your apparent dislike of the Manly club, you are not man enough to apologise properly....


Regards,
 
Nice Phantar, but as you said he hasn't got the balls and you probably won't get a reply but if you do I'll be interested in what he says.
 
Sour grapes because the Marlins (via the coach, Alan Jones) didn't let Fitzsimons play in the winning grand final?

No wonder Fitzsimons desperately wants this all to go away. He made a total fool of himself with his support of Gallop's actions a couple of years ago. Must be very embarrassing for him, as it would be for Rebecca Wilson.
 
I wonder how he'd feel if the headline in tomorrow's paper was "Fitzsimmons is a drunken rapist"?

All of these f***wits saying Brett and the club should get over it should ask themselves the same question.

The only problem is it wouldn't work with Rebecca Wilson because it would probably be accurate.
 
I love how Fitzsimons suddenly woke up one day and thought, "Gee, I wonder if there's anything I can do to make me look like more of a smug, self-aggrandising wanker than I already do? I know! I'll wear a red bandana! Surely an affectation like that will get me noticed! Dinkum! The cobbers on the Kokoda trail will love it!"
The man's an A-grade tool.
 
Sheikheagle said:
Hard to believe that he played for the Marlins!

The marlins players hated him. He was a weirdo. Couldn't play rugby either and is a **** author
 
Rex said:
Sour grapes because the Marlins (via the coach, Alan Jones) didn't let Fitzsimons play in the winning grand final?

No wonder Fitzsimons desperately wants this all to go away. He made a total fool of himself with his support of Gallop's actions a couple of years ago. Must be very embarrassing for him, as it would be for Rebecca Wilson.

Maybe Alan didn't want to play with him. I can imagine the pain. Bring it in tight Fitzie, and face the fact Alan doesn't think you have the cojones that he wants.

Actually you don't have the cojones period. I read your piece today and spat bile. Of course you weren't wrong for calling for his immediate suspension and denial of his livelihood for 2 years because of an insane accusation

Far be it from you to question the accuracy of the salacious reports in the Murdoch press. You just soaked it it all up and look where it has put you. No credibility and sure as hell no forgiveness.

And as Ron above has pointed out - your bandana has stopped the blood flow to your giant noggin. You can't tip and you sure don't know fact from your own fiction.
 
I received a response from him. I responded back. I may post it later. I regret the title I chose for this post, it was unnecessary.
 
Phantar said:
I received a response from him. I responded back. I may post it later. I regret the title I chose for this post, it was unnecessary.
Please post both mate and congrats on your email sent
 
Phantar said:
I received a response from him. I responded back. I may post it later. I regret the title I chose for this post, it was unnecessary.
Put it down to a crime of passion in the heat of the moment.
:)
 
Phantar said:
I regret the title I chose for this post, it was unnecessary.

Please elaborate
aug08_022.gif
 
Phantar said:
I received a response from him. I responded back. I may post it later. I regret the title I chose for this post, it was unnecessary.

Unnecessary ? as in tautology unnecessary ?
 
The funny thing about all these muppets who keep banging on about 'give it up Manly/Dessie/Brett' etc they use the excuse that Brett cannot heal until he gives it up. The truth is that it is annoying the life out of all of them and that is the reason they want it all to stop being brought up again. I find it quite amusing how much it niggles at them and that alone is enough reason to repeatedly bring it up. Just because it annoys them doesn't mean it has to, or will, go away.
 
Team P W L PD Pts
3 3 0 48 6
4 3 1 28 6
3 2 1 10 6
4 2 2 39 4
3 2 1 28 4
3 2 1 15 4
3 2 1 14 4
2 1 1 13 4
2 1 1 6 4
3 2 1 -3 4
3 1 2 0 2
3 1 2 -5 2
3 1 2 -15 2
3 1 2 -22 2
3 1 2 -36 2
2 0 2 -56 2
3 0 3 -64 0
Back
Top Bottom