It is ludicrous to term Reardon "a wife beater" unless of course you want to wind him up, chanting-moron-on-the-terraces-stylee.

A "wife beater" to me is a man who subjects his wife to violence, as part of their normal domestic routine, because that's what he gets off on. A violent asshole with no respect for women.

Reardon's incident did involve assault (AFAIR grabbing the arm, causing bruising?) as well as generally behaving frighteningly and aggressivbely so the reports said, but has it ever been alleged that in the course of his marriage Reardon ever beat his wife? Certainly not so far as I am aware. On this occasion he went to her house as he was upset at hearing she was seeing some other guy. The guy was there, and Reardon (inexcusably) lost his rag and he and Pryce (inexcusably) forced their way in and did what they did.

Nobody condones what he did, and he has been punished as the criminal courts thought fit, and has a record. I am in no way minimizing it. Yet it is what it is, a one-off incident in a one-off set of circumstances. To call him a "wife beater" on the strength of that is frankly barking.

Is he a violent asshole with no respect for women? I would suggest the sentence he received from those best placed to judge - the court that heard the FULL story - indicates that they were satisifed he is not.

Why? He was convicted in court of an act of violence against his wife? What would you say he was then?



And how do you know that it was a "one-off" incident? Unless you actually lived in the same house as Reardon and his Mrs then you cannot possibly know the full story? However, there is a chance that you may just be making things up again in order to suit your argument.

As far as we know, Ian Huntley's murder of Holly and Jessica was a "one off" incident. By using your logic, is it barking to call him a murderer?



Yeah, the courts that heard the FULL story on the Birmingham 6, Guildford 4, Barry George, Sion Jenkins, OJ Simpson cases etc etc.....

Oh, I am sure I have committed the occasional sin in my time. You know, like a crafty fag in a no-smoking zone, jumping the fare on a train, even the odd nicked gobstopper when I was a kid. Hell, I even talked to a Leeds fans once!

Thankfully however, I have no record of assault against my wife on my record to speak of. In fact, the only time I have ever been in court is as a witness.

I just wonder what sort of message this signing puts out to the female supporters of Bradford Bulls because we cannot afford to lose any more people through the gate.

to compare a drunken idiot grabbing his wife's arm and bruising her to murderers is quite extreme. A comparison like for like would be more fair.

back on topic, I think Reardon will make a good signing. He obviously has the skills but hasn't had a chance to use them for a while. I hope he gets that chance here or he will turn out to be another feather type signing.

Interesting one that.

There are more than a few regular female posters on here.

It'd be interesting to hear their views . . . . .

Never seen the Guildford Four and the Birmingham Six cited as a reason to treat those convicted of crime more harshly before.

I just hope Stuart is given a fair chance to get back on a regular path, we can do without any element who want to go back over the past.
He has shown us before that he is a good player, and if approaching his best, can break the opponents defensive lines, and that his the type of back who is in short supply.
It is very easy to sit in judgement, but I am sure Stuart knows he will be very much in the public eye, and any lapse will be punished.

So all these things are acceptable to you as a fan are they? Its ok as long as they say sorry? Or admit it?
Strange.

Here is one females view:

This appears to be a one off incident and as such I do not think it precludes him earning a living as a professional sportsman. I think career-wise he has paid a heavy price.

I have no objection to the bulls offering him a lifeline and hope he appreciates what the club is doing for him.

I asked you a question, which you have avoided by diverting the question back at me in different form. I will happily answer your question, once you have answered mine.

I find it strange how some people feel able to form an objective judgment on the suitability of a player as an individual based presumably on what they have read in the papers or online (often from the same original source)?

Would those people feel equally able to form an objective judgment on the suitability of a player as a player, based solely on what what they read in the "popular" (as opposed to specialist) papers or in published stories online?

For my own part, on the second point I prefer firstly to trust to what I have seen with my own eyes. In the absence of that, I prefer to trust to the judgment of people who I feel are best-qualified to judge.

On the first point, no difference. In that case, since I did not attend the court and hear the various submissions (and see the reports made available to the court) I prefer to trust to those who are best qualified to judge. Which, with respect, is the court, and not provincial journalists writing a story for generic "popular" papers.

As FA said, the sentence passed down by the court would tend to indicate how the court judged the offence, would it not?

Excuse me, but my post explained, in detail, the distinction I am drawing. It's not difficult. Try reading it again, it needs no explanation. If you don't want to read it, or can't understand it, that is your problem but the answer was there before you asked it. (So why did you ask it?)


Because I lived with Reardon and his wife throughout their marriage, and never left their side.

rlStuart speaks...rl

Stuart was a decent player when he was with us before and I see no reason why he shouldn`t be so again. We all make mistakes in life, some more serious than others, but that doesn`t mean that an individual person is somehow automatically beyond redemption.

As has been pointed out, the court decided it wasn`t at the `bad` end of assault and he wasn`t given a custodial sentence. He`s got a job playing rugby for heaven`s sake, not wanting to go out with your daughter.