Devilhead wrote:As I said in the other thread - a good record should not be rewarded it should be expected
A lot of clean players are getting reported these days where as in the past they would not have.
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Devilhead wrote:As I said in the other thread - a good record should not be rewarded it should be expected
What is that got to with a reduction in sentence??plugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote:As I said in the other thread - a good record should not be rewarded it should be expected
A lot of clean players are getting reported these days where as in the past they would not have.
No I obviously dont. Do you agree with discounts on your licence for a clean record?Devilhead wrote:What is that got to with a reduction in sentence??plugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote:As I said in the other thread - a good record should not be rewarded it should be expected
A lot of clean players are getting reported these days where as in the past they would not have.
A good record is excepted - why reward something that be should be a given
Do you agree that a first time murderer or armed robber be given a reduction in their sentences because they havent committed a murder or armed robbery before??
Cmon Plug stick to the topic at hand - your question has nothing to do with receiving a reduction after committing an offence which the topic we are discussing concernsplugger66 wrote:No I obviously dont. Do you agree with discounts on your licence for a clean record?Devilhead wrote:What is that got to with a reduction in sentence??plugger66 wrote: A lot of clean players are getting reported these days where as in the past they would not have.
A good record is excepted - why reward something that be should be a given
Do you agree that a first time murderer or armed robber be given a reduction in their sentences because they havent committed a murder or armed robbery before??
Devilhead wrote:Cmon Plug stick to the topic at hand - your question has nothing to do with receiving a reduction after committing an offence which the topic we are discussing concernsplugger66 wrote:No I obviously dont. Do you agree with discounts on your licence for a clean record?Devilhead wrote:
What is that got to with a reduction in sentence??
A good record is excepted - why reward something that be should be a given
Do you agree that a first time murderer or armed robber be given a reduction in their sentences because they havent committed a murder or armed robbery before??
Do you agree with receiving a reduction in a licence suspension or fine after being caught drink driving or speeding If you have a clean record??
Again typical gutless response - trying to take others words out of context - you are completely transparent and have been ridiculously exposedplugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote:Cmon Plug stick to the topic at hand - your question has nothing to do with receiving a reduction after committing an offence which the topic we are discussing concernsplugger66 wrote:
No I obviously dont. Do you agree with discounts on your licence for a clean record?
Do you agree with receiving a reduction in a licence suspension or fine after being caught drink driving or speeding If you have a clean record??
As I said on the other. You said a good record should not be rewarded it should be expected so my point is relevent. A clean licence should not be rewarded it should be expected.
And no I dont think you should get a reduction for having your licence a long time.
Devilhead wrote:Again typical gutless response - trying to take others words out of context - you are completely transparent and have been ridiculously exposedplugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote:
Cmon Plug stick to the topic at hand - your question has nothing to do with receiving a reduction after committing an offence which the topic we are discussing concerns
Do you agree with receiving a reduction in a licence suspension or fine after being caught drink driving or speeding If you have a clean record??
As I said on the other. You said a good record should not be rewarded it should be expected so my point is relevent. A clean licence should not be rewarded it should be expected.
And no I dont think you should get a reduction for having your licence a long time.
Thanks for helping me prove my point
Yes all drivers should be expected to have clean recordsplugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote:Again typical gutless response - trying to take others words out of context - you are completely transparent and have been ridiculously exposedplugger66 wrote: As I said on the other. You said a good record should not be rewarded it should be expected so my point is relevent. A clean licence should not be rewarded it should be expected.
And no I dont think you should get a reduction for having your licence a long time.
Thanks for helping me prove my point
You are one strange unit. The only thing you have proved is when the discussion gets to hard you get personal. I still dont get your point either. All i know is the reason you said you shouldnt get a discount is because it should be expected that you have a clean record. Do you think a driver should be expected to have a clean record?
I have answered that previously. I dont think they should get a discount. Why do some coppers let people off with warnings when they have clearly broken the law when driving and it would be my guess older people are let off more than 18 year old P platers. And It depends on the charge. The law does give discounts or even let you off if it is first time drug offence with some drugs. It seems you wouldnt let first time drug offenders off. They should be expected not to use illegal drugs but people do. The still get let off in some cases.Devilhead wrote:Yes all drivers should be expected to have clean recordsplugger66 wrote:Devilhead wrote:
Again typical gutless response - trying to take others words out of context - you are completely transparent and have been ridiculously exposed
Thanks for helping me prove my point
You are one strange unit. The only thing you have proved is when the discussion gets to hard you get personal. I still dont get your point either. All i know is the reason you said you shouldnt get a discount is because it should be expected that you have a clean record. Do you think a driver should be expected to have a clean record?
Do you think a driver should be expected to have a clean record??
And do you think drivers should receive a reduced suspension or fine for a first time offence??
But you believe that players should get a reduction in their suspension if it's a first time offenceplugger66 wrote:I have answered that previously. I dont think they should get a discount.Devilhead wrote:Yes all drivers should be expected to have clean recordsplugger66 wrote:Do you think a driver should be expected to have a clean record?
Do you think a driver should be expected to have a clean record??
And do you think drivers should receive a reduced suspension or fine for a first time offence??
But where is the reduction in the originalplugger66 wrote: Why do some coppers let people off with warnings when they have clearly broken the law when driving and it would be my guess older people are let off more than 18 year old P platers. And It depends on the charge. The law does give discounts or even let you off if it is first time drug offence with some drugs. It seems you wouldnt let first time drug offenders off. They should be expected not to use illegal drugs but people do. The still get let off in some cases.
Sainter_Dad wrote:Inconsistencies will always occur - what I would love to see is that at least one match of any suspension gets held over until the player plays against the team he infringed upon. There is no benefit to Carlton having Wellingham out for the next 3 weeks - in fact it goes against them if Collingwood are playing temas that Carlton are contending with for finals spots.
I also object to the cumulative benefits of early pleas. Your carry over points are added to the penalty and then reduced by the 25% for the early plea - There should only be a 25% reduction against the points for the event you are pleading guilty to.
In a perfect world Plugger - lol - If you knew you were going to retire that year as well - you could have essentially 17 Free Hits - as long as they only drew one match each!plugger66 wrote:Sainter_Dad wrote:Inconsistencies will always occur - what I would love to see is that at least one match of any suspension gets held over until the player plays against the team he infringed upon. There is no benefit to Carlton having Wellingham out for the next 3 weeks - in fact it goes against them if Collingwood are playing temas that Carlton are contending with for finals spots.
I also object to the cumulative benefits of early pleas. Your carry over points are added to the penalty and then reduced by the 25% for the early plea - There should only be a 25% reduction against the points for the event you are pleading guilty to.
The problem with carrying it over is that you may retire, get sacked, be injured nect time you play them. And if you are injured wont the club just say you were fit but you served your suspension. It does sound like a good idea but I think there are far to many varibles. What happens if you are traded to the other club?