Remove this Banner Ad

Serious question about Headland

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cameron_K
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

No, he didnt .. although his father was a little less reserved
I think the agitation showed by Des snr "on air" will be excused by the fact that he was actually talking to Howard Sattler at the time.

Sattler could move Pope Benedict to use strong language.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

I think the agitation showed by Des snr "on air" will be excused by the fact that he was actually talking to Howard Sattler at the time.

Sattler could move Pope Benedict to use strong language.

if anything it'll be 6pr & sattler that get sued.
like alan jones & 2GB/2UE over the "come down to cronulla bikies & thump a leb" comments
it isn't the person making the comments that gets sued
it's the radio station for broadcasting the comment
 
No, don't think so. Apparantly there was an interview with him aired on Tuesday? Didn't hear anything about it.
 
I heard it live and sattler made no mention of trying to contact Des Snr. I certainly thought Des Snr must have rang in after being infuriated by sattlers behavior that Monday afternoon.
 
Des didnt say a word publicly. They have nothing on him.

Leading up to the tribunal no, on the tribunal night itself however Des put his foot in his mouth big time
 
Did he tell the truth? Fancy that...

Headland told what he thought was true, and it got proven to be unsubstantiated and Selwood was declared Not-guilty as a result

Headland may think it's true, but because he doesn't have the evidence to back himself up, he's now left himself wide open to legal recourse for his accusation on Selwood
 
Headland told what he thought was true, and it got proven to be unsubstantiated and Selwood was declared Not-guilty as a result

Headland may think it's true, but because he doesn't have the evidence to back himself up, he's now left himself wide open to legal recourse for his accusation on Selwood

Ah no.

According to Tom Percy QC on 6pr this morning, people who discuss matters in court/tribunals need to be able to tell the truth and are therefore given leeway with the evidence they give.

He also said legal action is very unlikely to succeed.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Headland told what he thought was true, and it got proven to be unsubstantiated and Selwood was declared Not-guilty as a result

Headland may think it's true, but because he doesn't have the evidence to back himself up, he's now left himself wide open to legal recourse for his accusation on Selwood

Sorry but a defamation case will not take into account the tribunal result.
 
Headland told what he thought was true, and it got proven to be unsubstantiated and Selwood was declared Not-guilty as a result

Headland may think it's true, but because he doesn't have the evidence to back himself up, he's now left himself wide open to legal recourse for his accusation on Selwood

They wont sue, Even though I hope they do ....as Im sure Des will stick by his story...

Remember the threats from Fletcher managers ?> What happened ? Huff an Puff ... just appeasing WCE fans .
 
Ah no.

According to Tom Percy QC on 6pr this morning, people who discuss matters in court/tribunals need to be able to tell the truth and are therefore given leeway with the evidence they give.

He also said legal action is very unlikely to succeed.

Healdands words last night when asked his reaction to what he did

"i called him a peadophile, coz thats what he is"

The first parts fine, as he ws recalling what he said at the time, the second part is the one which could land him in hot water

But as you said depends on the leeway he is granted
 
Sorry but a defamation case will not take into account the tribunal result.

The tribunal was about Headland proving Selwood saying the comments

The legal case would be about Headland making the comments, so yeah the tribunal wouldn't be taken into consideration

When did the AFL turn into weekly espisodes of Law and Order?
 
The tribunal was about Headland proving Selwood saying the comments

The legal case would be about Headland making the comments, so yeah the tribunal wouldn't be taken into consideration

When did the AFL turn into weekly espisodes of Law and Order?

Dude, your cred's a bit "suss" after your bullshit on Grover earlier this week.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Dude, your cred's a bit "suss" after your bullshit on Grover earlier this week.

I got that from a fellow poster who reported it on the main board, and subsequently apologised to Ripper for posting false information

However, look up the transcripts from last night, Des said it and was reported last night, again not my words
 
I got that from a fellow poster who reported it on the main board, and subsequently apologised to Ripper for posting false information

However, look up the transcripts from last night, Des said it and was reported last night, again not my words

Once again if it goes to court Selwood would have to prove he didn't say it once again. As Tom Percy said this will be a lot more interesting in a court of law.
 
They wont sue, Even though I hope they do ....as Im sure Des will stick by his story...

Remember the threats from Fletcher managers ?> What happened ? Huff an Puff ... just appeasing WCE fans .
I hope they try to sue aswell,whatever did happen to those medical reports of Fletchers?Were they ever released?I wonder why.
 
I hope they try to sue aswell,whatever did happen to those medical reports of Fletchers?Were they ever released?I wonder why.

Clutching at straws aren't you. The club and Fletcher made it really clear they were being sent, and that they would be here in a week. Oh. That was a over a week ago. Easily. Maybe Fletcher's clutching at straw.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom