Well, bully for you but your expectations have just been popped haven't they?



Since you know so much about the marriage (or now ex-marriage) of Mr and Mrs Reardon and since you obviously think Mr Pryce also had some kind of input into this marriage (given that you've linked him in with domestic violence issues), perhaps you could share your inner knowledge with us? Because, dammit, I have no idea what went on in that marriage. All I know is that two young and stupid men pled guilty to a common assault charge each. That is all I am concerned with. For all I know, Mrs Reardon may now be exacting her revenge for Mr Reardon divorcing her. How do I know? I don't know them or their marriage or what Mr Pryce gets up to when he goes home.



And nor do you, surprisingly enough! So I would suggest you get off your high horse. You look quite ridiculous up there. No really, you do.

First of all, I'm a woman and I know all about being assaulted. I also know that Reardon and his wife were splitting up - he was divorcing her. That makes this complicated and messy and I for one am not going to comment on their marriage or anything else. Because, like you, I know nothing about it.

Yet you're quite happy to defend him/them...funny that.

Where did I comment on their marriage?

The domestic issue may be less important than the 'forcing entry' issue.



You force entry to someone's home and assault them, trust me - it's a different playing field from the routine type of assault offences.



This is much more serious than many fans seem to realise.

It's a Section 39 assault. That's fairly routine, yes?



The violent entry charge - no evidence provided from the prosecution. That tells me there was no violent entry. Mrs Reardon opened the door and Mr Reardon pushed his way past her. Mr & Mrs heading towards divorce. Very tricky one to sort out I would say.





The way you are talking about the 'domestic violence issue' suggests you must know something about their marriage that we don't? All we know is that he grabbed his then wife's arm, causing three bruises, having pushed past her into the house. That's all we know about the 'domestic violence'. So what is it that you know about Reardon's marriage which we don't?





Because I don't jump on bandwagons, I'm not one of the lynch mob, I am capable of thinking independently from the baying crowd and I have a strong sense of fair play and justice. Some of the things that have been said about Reardon and Pryce on these boards are sick and I hope the people who say that crap find themselves on the end of a smear campaign and mob rule, just to see what it feels like.

I'm sorry but this is now getting absolutely ridiculous. I don't know who you are accusing of being sick but what is sick is the failure of Saints fans to face up to reality.



READ THE REPORTS. See what the judge said about the seriousness of the offences.



Note which court they have been bailed to appear before for sentencing - THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE COURT.



[urlhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyleague/5056758/Stuart-Reardon-and-Leon-Pryce-face-prison-over-assaults.html[/url



[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/mar/26/stuart-reardon-leon-pryce-assault[/url

if entry had been forced to the premises the charge would have been burglary. the defination in law states that if a person enters a building or part of a building as a trespasser with the intention of commiting theft , damage or assault then the offence is complete. i dont believe this was the case with pryce and reardon. however the premeditated side of it all to me is an aggravating factor and should be punished appropriately

The fact that they weren't charged with burglary is certainly beneficial to their position. Though to commit burglary, when it's an assault rather than a theft, rape or damage, you need to enter with [uthe intent[/u to commit assault (maybe even [uGBH[/u, though I'm a little hazy on that). It's very difficult in this situation (i.e. a domestic dispute) to prove that the miscreants entered with [uthe intent[/u to assault. And knowing how gutless the CPS are these days, it's very unlikely that those charges would ever have been pressed.



However, be under no illusion - the circumstances of this incident will still colour the judge's view. This will not be treated like some street brawl in which the accused could claim that he was the victim of provocation.

A lot of stains fans have been bringing up about Feka at what he did the facts are:-



Feka has got a brilliant conduct record on the field, he punched a guy ONCE



Pryce is a cheap shot mercheant who has done other things in the past that makes him a embarrassement to rugby league ( including grabbing players bits TWICE), what was his excuse this time?????





I REST MY CASE MY LORD !!!!!!!!!!!

and that is the thing, the intent, which will be a key word in all this which is why the offence of burglary never came to light. it is very difficult to prove as the only person that really knows is the suspect. the rape side of the defination was dropped about 2 years ago and is now covered under the new sexual offences act, leaving just the theft, assault and damage side of things, but again its proving that intent. for me it was completely premeditated. why take a 6ft4 16st mate with you to find out about your ex's new relationship. i just hope that the judge takes into account evidence of bad character when it comes to pryce which is something they should do as long as it was covered on interview, as well as the fact that domestic violence is a big buzz word in legal circles. i agree with the cps been gutless, they are completely driven by figures and cost, whatever happens it will be interesting to see if saints have the same stand as warrington did with reardon

I guess we'll see very soon.