Attempts to change the subject won't cut it either. This thread is about Reardon and Pryce. If you want to talk about something else (that never even happened) start a new thread - preferably on your own board, where you're only likely to hear sanitised views about Saints players (which, if you were ever there, you'd already realise).

The first post of this thread asks about Saints response to Pryce's actions and many more relate to Saints' moral stance on the issue. It is not a change of subject to compare one club's stance with that of another - indeed Saints' actions have consistently been compared to those of Cas/KR so it seems to be acceptable one way.

I don't care for sanitised views - my views on Pryce are more damning than most and if he never sees a red vee again I won't lose any sleep. I am just interested in the apparent hypocrisy of chastising Saints for not sacking a player for domestic violence whilst ignoring Wigan's attempts to sign another accused of worse.

And what never even happened? Are you saying IL didn't make an offer for Bird? Or that he hasn't been charged with maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm and assault occasioning actual bodily harm for allegedly glassing his girlfriend?

THIS THREAD IS GETTING TEDIOUS......AND I THOUGHT IT WAS STILL SUB-JUDICE????

It is, but now mathers has gone it was all saints fault

Bird says he didn't. His girlfriend says he didn't. Doesn't matter what I think. The truth will come out at the trial.

Pryce has already pleaded guilty.

That's the sujbect under discussion.

But as others have said. It's got boring now and there's little more to say - except that, if you don't want to hear what non-St Helensers think about St Helens, you're in the wrong place on here.

It is so ironic that you should be suggesting I don't think carefully about what I post! I'm one of the posters on RLFans who have clearly thought carefully about this whole issue, as well as about Cockayne and his actions, and my opinions are well known on this and other boards.

I don't condone violence at all, except on the rugby league pitch where I love it. So long as it involves Graham owning Bailey. Or indeed any of our players owning Bailey. (I hate Bailey - thug; and an ex-con too)

I'm sorry, but domestic situations often ARE complicated. The police didn't used to get involved in 'domestics'. The two police officers I have known as friends were loathe to become involved in them because they are not as straight forward as it would appear. Alcohol, emotion, provocation - all these things play a part.

Reardon was in the process of divorcing his wife at the time this happened. I believe they were still married when it happened, which is why the case has been listed for the DV court.

The charge of common assault is very broad. If I were to push you, even if it was not hard enough for you to lose your balance, you could have me charged with common assault. In fact, if I touched you and you did not want to be touched by me you could probably try and have me charged with common assault. It is a broad charge and can mean very little or a whole lot, depending. It carries up to a six month jail term but it can also be a fine and/or community service, depending upon whatever other factors the judge takes into consideration when sentencing.

This was about a marriage breaking down. If you are not willing to see that then that's fine, your call, but I prefer to be honest about all this. I do not know what went on in Reardon's marriage and I do not know what went on in that house. What I do know is what the court has released and that all Reardon did was grab his now ex-wife's arm briefly, causing three bruises (which means for a brief moment he grabbed her arm hard).

Sorry, but that's not enough for me to go apeshit over and call a man a wife beater or God knows what other stupid and possibly defamatory stuff has been said on here. So far as any of us know, Mrs Reardon could now be rubbing her hands with glee that she's potentially ruined her ex-husband's career. How do we know? We don't.

PS: I'm a woman, so I'm unlikely to promote or advocate domestic violence. However, some women are very violent towards their male partners, so don't take that as read. I may be wanting you for my supper. *belch*

I know what the technical definition of "assault" is. It is a broad offence and can range from extremely minor offences to serious ones (see what the judge said about this one).

This case was not "about a marriage breaking down", it was about a man and his friend assaulting his ex and her new partner.

That's domestic violence, that's why they will find themselves in that court for sentencing on 23 April.

Infidelity does not mean that the "innocent" party has any excuse for assault, it is irrelevant.

Keep wriggling all you want but it is extremely simple. It is not "complicated" at all - there is NO excuse for domestic violence.

Youtube: Sean Connery Slap

He sure thinks there is.

I aint wriggling at all. I'm very comfortable with my position on this. Reardon and Pryce were a pair of idiots and Reardon risked both their reputations just to find out whether the rumour that his wife was shagging some bloke was true.

Incidentally, I do believe that provocation is still recognised in law. You might want to make a note of that when you make your sweeping statements about domestic violence. Domestic violence comes in many forms and it is in no way unique to women.

Nothing is ever as simple as it seems. Including marriage breakdowns.

if you must come on here annoying folk, at least do it without posting offensive words please.
wpm