Matt Ford To Be Commended

[Ipswich Jules 192]

I still think Matt Ford would sell his granny to gain an advantage over the rest of the league and will screw anyone over he has to. just because he's handled this one situation well doesn't mean he's suddenly in line for a sainthood in my opinion.

 

^ This

 

The $5500 fine was for 'fleeing from the Police' - a minimum fine introduced in 2012. The 2-year disqualification was for offences related to not having a licence. Although admitting the offences the 'conviction' is not recorded on his 'file'!

 

The parkland is at the back of his parent's house and the alleyway down the side of the property!

 

A stupid thing to do nonetheless! Incidentally, it would be interesting to know what the punishment would have been if he'd just stopped and stayed with the Police? Just a disqualification presumably?!

 

I believe (from reading elsewhere on this forum) that in Australian law an admission of guilt means a recording of a conviction isn't necessary - I assume because he hasn't been convicted by his peers due to the admission of guilt.

Doesn't change the fact that guilty it still guilty - whether it's a confession or a conviction by judge and jury.

[pugwash 3,208]

It's a statement of fact. He pleaded guilty to using drugs, he's even admitted it in his official statement if there was any doubt the Aussie legal system was misquoting him. Thus he is a convicted drug user.

He hasn't been convicted of any drugs offence.

[BWitcher 12,453]

He hasn't been convicted of any drugs offence.

 

And still some folk want to just drag it on and on and on.

 

You're doing the lad no favours. He's held his hands up and admitted he did wrong. Move on.

[speedibee 3,091]

And still some folk want to just drag it on and on and on.

 

You're doing the lad no favours. He's held his hands up and admitted he did wrong. Move on.

He hasn't earned any favours and doesn't deserve any .

[BWitcher 12,453]

An explanation of being found guilty, with no conviction:-

 

In the courts, lawyers often argue that their client should be spared a criminal record by "avoiding a conviction". Lawyers will submit that the court should not record a conviction as this may hamper their client's job prospects. Magistrates and Judges will sometimes act on these submissions as a measure of lenience to the offender if this is seen to be in the public interest. Victorian sentencing law requires the courts to take these issues into account.

 

Victorian law permits courts to find a person guilty of an offence but not proceed to record a conviction. This can be done when adjourning a case on condition of good behaviour or when giving a fine or correction order. A conviction must be recorded when a more severe penalty is imposed, such as a sentence of imprisonment.

If the court is considering whether or not to record a conviction, the law states that all circumstances of the case must be considered when making the decision. These circumstances include the nature of the offence, the character and past history of the offender and the impact of recording of a conviction on the offender's economic or social well-being or employment prospects (s.8 Sentencing Act 1991 (Vic) ("Sentencing Act").

 

This statement of legal principle may give the impression that not recording a conviction will protect the offender from harm to their social well-being or employment prospects. Unfortunately this is not always so. Under the Victoria Police policy relating to criminal records, employers and others you authorise to access or receive your police record will be informed of findings of guilt made against you, regardless of whether a conviction is recorded or not. Police may also list an offence on your record if you have been charged and the case is awaiting hearing, or even if you are only a suspect under investigation.

 

Link to the information:-http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/handbook/ch04s06s01.php

Edited February 22, 2013 by BWitcher

[topaz325 1,859]

How many more, Poole, Ford, Ward threads!

[Grand Central 2,654]

 

He hasn't been convicted of any drugs offence.

 

This question of legal semantics may interest you greatly but it is of very little help to Mr Ward by perpetuating the discussion.

 

He pleaded guilty to driving under the influence of liquor or a drug (plus other offences).

He had admitted to having smoked cannabis when questioned by Police at the scene.

He has since admitted in his own statement to same.

 

He was convicted at Magistrates Court of driving under the influence of liquor or a drug (plus other offences).

That conviction is entered as 'not recorded against your name' as is allowed under Australian Law.

 

Under this law you are still guilty, you have still been convicted. That conviction will still appear on things like Police computers and it will still be held against you if you are convicted of other offences in the future. You just don't have it against our name in situations like applying for a job.

 

It remains to be seen how it will affect Mr Ward.

At places like border control it will all depend on exactly the question he is asked.

If asked 'Have you any convictions recorded against your name?' ... He will be able to say 'No' and go on his way.

But if asked 'Have you been found guilty, or been convicted, of an offence?' ... He will have to give a full disclosure.

 

Then it may very well matter a great deal about what those authorities judge to be the semantics of his guilty plea.

[pugwash 3,208]

He's admitted smoking dope but the police didn't charge him with possesion.

FFS how many members on this forum have smoked a joint, even the president of the USA admitted it (but he didn't inhale lol).

Let the person who hath not sinned cast the first stone.

[Grand Central 2,654]

He's admitted smoking dope but the police didn't charge him with possesion.

FFS how many members on this forum have smoked a joint, even the president of the USA admitted it (but he didn't inhale lol).

Let the person who hath not sinned cast the first stone.

 

I'll happily chuck a stone in your direction just to register my lack of drug taking.

If it helps.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Grand Central

[Trees 2,814]

Unfortunately from now on Darcy is going to be labelled as a convicted drug user, however exciting he is, any excitement and success will have this shadow around it.

But on a brighter note, with the Sport so low in the public gaize, it will not even reach anyone outside the SStar and Poole Echo.

I feel very sorry for Middlo in all this, as he's been dragged into a swamp three times now by the same rider, Neil is a very genuine,and decent guy, who will always answer you honestly, he's probably too genuine for his own good, as it would be far more convenient to cheat and lie.

 

Any reason why Matt Ford can't replace the Pope now he's retired, with all the people being converted on here, he'd be good for the Catholic Church.

As far as drugs are concerned I will agree with Middlo that they seem the norm for many young people. It's sad to say but drugs are too easily available and too easily accepted by young people. Including fags and booze ....... b4 anyone says anything!

He's admitted smoking dope but the police didn't charge him with possesion.

FFS how many members on this forum have smoked a joint, even the president of the USA admitted it (but he didn't inhale lol).

Let the person who hath not sinned cast the first stone.

Arise Saint Theresa

Edited February 22, 2013 by Trees

[Kester 3,035]

He's admitted smoking dope but the police didn't charge him with possesion.

FFS how many members on this forum have smoked a joint, even the president of the USA admitted it (but he didn't inhale lol).

Let the person who hath not sinned cast the first stone.

 

How many of them have also done a runner on a bike (illegally).

Or been involved in punch ups on the street.

Or been charged with sexual offences.

 

Oh, not many of us actually. It all adds up to a picture of someone who isn't really living his life in the right way don't you think? Or maybe you think to act in any of these ways is absolutely fine, each to his own I suppose.

 

If Matt Ford is prepared to make the statement he has, and let's face it he knows the lad an awful lot better than you or me, then something is clearly up.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Kester

[pugwash 3,208]

Don't get flippant, where have i condoned any of this? I'm on about the drug aspect.

[SCB 0]

He's admitted smoking dope but the police didn't charge him with possesion.

FFS how many members on this forum have smoked a joint, even the president of the USA admitted it (but he didn't inhale lol).

Let the person who hath not sinned cast the first stone.

I've never taken any illegal drugs, ever. but as I said yesterday on this forum, I'm not too bothered about anyone smoking a bit of weed, it's the combination of what he did I have an issue with.

[Kester 3,035]

Don't get flippant, where have i condoned any of this? I'm on about the drug aspect.

 

And that's the whole point, none of us are on about just the drug aspect. That's what makes this serious.

[E I Addio 15,849]

He's admitted smoking dope but the police didn't charge him with possesion.

FFS how many members on this forum have smoked a joint, even the president of the USA admitted it (but he didn't inhale lol).

Let the person who hath not sinned cast the first stone.

 

Once again, this particular thread is not about Wards guilt or anyone else's. There are other threads dealing with that. It is about the Poole managements response to a local newspapers request for comment. The general opinion seems to be that Ford handled it the way it should be handled and Middlo made a complete dogs breakfast of the whole thing and made an embarrassing situation worse.

 

Do you wish to express an opinion on the subject matter of the thread ? Your comments so far have only been pertinent to the two other threads on the subject.