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 hatefulâ€. 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 “courteousâ€, “in-controlâ€, “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.â€
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,
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 hatefulâ€. 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 “courteousâ€, “in-controlâ€, “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.â€
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,