WiganWarriorsFans.com

must be 100% true this story

Dave 'Nosey' Parker is reporting it in league weekly so it must be happening

i'm spartacus wrote:

East Stand Faithful wrote:
The truth is that there is a court case currently scheduled for July which may reveal more.

People go to court everyday; both sides have their own set of circumstances which they have laid out before their legal representatives, and both parties are convinced of their own arguments.
The fact is that 50% of them have got it very badly wrong.

With the majority of private litigation, there is always the option for either party to settle the matter without admitting they were wrong, and before the matter goes to court. If this happens, there is likely to be a non disclosure clause attached and we never know what happened.

I was under the impression the court case referred to in July was not a private litigation matter but a criminal case and there is no settling out of court with those.

One thing I do know, is that one tale is good till the other is told. I've listened to many people tell me tales of how they have been wronged, and until you hear both sides, you cannot make a judgement on who was right or who was wrong.

The court case isn't anything to do with Hock directly so he hasn't got a side as such in that he isn't the wronged party nor the accused.

DaveO wrote:

i'm spartacus wrote:

East Stand Faithful wrote:
The truth is that there is a court case currently scheduled for July which may reveal more.

People go to court everyday; both sides have their own set of circumstances which they have laid out before their legal representatives, and both parties are convinced of their own arguments.
The fact is that 50% of them have got it very badly wrong.

With the majority of private litigation, there is always the option for either party to settle the matter without admitting they were wrong, and before the matter goes to court. If this happens, there is likely to be a non disclosure clause attached and we never know what happened.

I was under the impression the court case referred to in July was not a private litigation matter but a criminal case and there is no settling out of court with those.

Correct

One thing I do know, is that one tale is good till the other is told. I've listened to many people tell me tales of how they have been wronged, and until you hear both sides, you cannot make a judgement on who was right or who was wrong.

The court case isn't anything to do with Hock directly so he hasn't got a side as such in that he isn't the wronged party nor the accused.

Correct on both points DaveO

DaveO wrote:

i'm spartacus wrote:

East Stand Faithful wrote:
The truth is that there is a court case currently scheduled for July which may reveal more.

People go to court everyday; both sides have their own set of circumstances which they have laid out before their legal representatives, and both parties are convinced of their own arguments.
The fact is that 50% of them have got it very badly wrong.

With the majority of private litigation, there is always the option for either party to settle the matter without admitting they were wrong, and before the matter goes to court. If this happens, there is likely to be a non disclosure clause attached and we never know what happened.

I was under the impression the court case referred to in July was not a private litigation matter but a criminal case and there is no settling out of court with those.

One thing I do know, is that one tale is good till the other is told. I've listened to many people tell me tales of how they have been wronged, and until you hear both sides, you cannot make a judgement on who was right or who was wrong.

And this is the problem when people post threads claiming to know 'the full story' or they do in fact know some of the facts and post partial information in a thread. Previous threads on this subject were along the lines of defamation and I wrongly assumed in the light of any information to the contrary that it was likely to be private litigation.

I like many others, am not 'aware' of anything around GH's departure other than what is posted here on the subject. The fact remains though that he is a liability on the pitch, and his history makes his behaviour off it questionable.

DaveO wrote: The court case isn't anything to do with Hock directly so he hasn't got a side as such in that he isn't the wronged party nor the accused.

How then does this court case shed any light on GH's circumstances?

i'm spartacus wrote:

DaveO wrote:

i'm spartacus wrote: People go to court everyday; both sides have their own set of circumstances which they have laid out before their legal representatives, and both parties are convinced of their own arguments.
The fact is that 50% of them have got it very badly wrong.

With the majority of private litigation, there is always the option for either party to settle the matter without admitting they were wrong, and before the matter goes to court. If this happens, there is likely to be a non disclosure clause attached and we never know what happened.

I was under the impression the court case referred to in July was not a private litigation matter but a criminal case and there is no settling out of court with those.

One thing I do know, is that one tale is good till the other is told. I've listened to many people tell me tales of how they have been wronged, and until you hear both sides, you cannot make a judgement on who was right or who was wrong.

And this is the problem when people post threads claiming to know 'the full story' or they do in fact know some of the facts and post partial information in a thread. Previous threads on this subject were along the lines of defamation and I wrongly assumed in the light of any information to the contrary that it was likely to be private litigation.

I like many others, am not 'aware' of anything around GH's departure other than what is posted here on the subject. The fact remains though that he is a liability on the pitch, and his history makes his behaviour off it questionable.

DaveO wrote: The court case isn't anything to do with Hock directly so he hasn't got a side as such in that he isn't the wronged party nor the accused.

How then does this court case shed any light on GH's circumstances?

Great point. Unfortunately I am not lucky enough to know the ins and outs of activities at Wigan RL, but one thing I and the majority of fans know as fact, is that Hock is a liability on the pitch. And we don't need him, that's evident. Who cares where he goes. Just don't let him back in our team. Not needed. I'm even happy for him to go to another super league club. He can't hurt us with his ability more than he can he can hurt himself and his team mates with his ill discipline.

Whelley Warrior wrote:

cpwigan wrote:ww not at all but you are making yourself look incredibly silly. worse yours posts are near identocal to another hock hater which if so makes you truly pathetic.

Any need for personal remarks about a person if they say anything which is not of the same opinion as yourself.

Now that is pathetic!

Just stating the obvious

NeeNawWarrior22 wrote:

i'm spartacus wrote:

DaveO wrote: I was under the impression the court case referred to in July was not a private litigation matter but a criminal case and there is no settling out of court with those.

And this is the problem when people post threads claiming to know 'the full story' or they do in fact know some of the facts and post partial information in a thread. Previous threads on this subject were along the lines of defamation and I wrongly assumed in the light of any information to the contrary that it was likely to be private litigation.

I like many others, am not 'aware' of anything around GH's departure other than what is posted here on the subject. The fact remains though that he is a liability on the pitch, and his history makes his behaviour off it questionable.

DaveO wrote: The court case isn't anything to do with Hock directly so he hasn't got a side as such in that he isn't the wronged party nor the accused.

How then does this court case shed any light on GH's circumstances?

Great point. Unfortunately I am not lucky enough to know the ins and outs of activities at Wigan RL, but one thing I and the majority of fans know as fact, is that Hock is a liability on the pitch. And we don't need him, that's evident. Who cares where he goes. Just don't let him back in our team. Not needed. I'm even happy for him to go to another super league club. He can't hurt us with his ability more than he can he can hurt himself and his team mates with his ill discipline.

Actually Hock can be a world class match winner Far from perfect but equally devastating on his day. If he was as you say he would not be prevented from playing against us. THINK!!! Likewise he would not be a GB member or wanted by SL Clubs and NRL Clubs.

Far worse, the reason for his departure be it loan or transfer would if it ever came out shake our great club to its core. IF our club is ever linked to what happened it would have devastating consequences. In all this Hock is a victim of circumstance. In the past he has been guilty of acts that brought shame upon him and the club. Since his darkest day the worse blip has been losing his cool on two occasions. The shame elsewhere is far far greater. I hope Hocky goes to Aus because I want to see him in the NRL and free from Wigan (the town / club)

i'm spartacus wrote:

DaveO wrote:

i'm spartacus wrote: People go to court everyday; both sides have their own set of circumstances which they have laid out before their legal representatives, and both parties are convinced of their own arguments.
The fact is that 50% of them have got it very badly wrong.

With the majority of private litigation, there is always the option for either party to settle the matter without admitting they were wrong, and before the matter goes to court. If this happens, there is likely to be a non disclosure clause attached and we never know what happened.

I was under the impression the court case referred to in July was not a private litigation matter but a criminal case and there is no settling out of court with those.

One thing I do know, is that one tale is good till the other is told. I've listened to many people tell me tales of how they have been wronged, and until you hear both sides, you cannot make a judgement on who was right or who was wrong.

And this is the problem when people post threads claiming to know 'the full story' or they do in fact know some of the facts and post partial information in a thread. Previous threads on this subject were along the lines of defamation and I wrongly assumed in the light of any information to the contrary that it was likely to be private litigation.

I like many others, am not 'aware' of anything around GH's departure other than what is posted here on the subject. The fact remains though that he is a liability on the pitch, and his history makes his behaviour off it questionable.

DaveO wrote: The court case isn't anything to do with Hock directly so he hasn't got a side as such in that he isn't the wronged party nor the accused.

How then does this court case shed any light on GH's circumstances?

Depends what happens / what information comes out in the court case.

i'm spartacus wrote:

DaveO wrote: The court case isn't anything to do with Hock directly so he hasn't got a side as such in that he isn't the wronged party nor the accused.

How then does this court case shed any light on GH's circumstances?

Criminal trials rarely involve just the accused and the alleged victim do they.

Other people become involved either directly as witnesses or indirectly as part of peoples statements.

DaveO wrote:

i'm spartacus wrote:

DaveO wrote: The court case isn't anything to do with Hock directly so he hasn't got a side as such in that he isn't the wronged party nor the accused.

How then does this court case shed any light on GH's circumstances?

Criminal trials rarely involve just the accused and the alleged victim do they.

Other people become involved either directly as witnesses or indirectly as part of peoples statements.

So who is on trial then?