We ran an item at Oilersnation about the possibility of assault charges being laid against former NHL player and coach Mike Milbury several days ago (Dec. 16). In the name of fairness, I’m linking to news today that Milbury, who is now a commentator with Hockey Night In Canada, won’t face any charges over the incident in question.

The case against former Boston Bruin Mike Milbury who was accused of assaulting a child on a pee wee hockey team has been dismissed.
At a hearing Friday where police were seeking to charge him with assault and battery on a child, a clerk magistrate found there was no probable cause to bring charges against Milbury.

The entire story is here.

Listen to Robin Brownlee Wednesdays and Thursdays from 3 p.m. to 5 p.m. on the Jason Gregor Show on TEAM 1260.

  • cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan

    Good for Mike. And I would congratulate you for the update but your original post was so far off the mark for professional journalism and smacked of lack of integrity. Please avoid that level of absolute crap writing and angle in the future. You are a grown man writing, not a high school boy looking for approval from a peer group.

    • Wanyes bastard child

      Hi Dave, Dave here, Robin said “We” as in the royal we meaning ON ran the item, not Brownlee himself. The article you are referring too was written by Jonathan Willis and was actually a fairly good article in my view.

      You may want to check your facts before calling someone out in such a manner eh 😉

      Per the topic, good for Mike.

      WBC has spoken!

    • Scuba Steve

      I agree with you about the original post, and I said as much in the comments of that post, but it wasn’t written by Brownlee, it was a piece by Willis, that in my opinion, should now be retracted and apologized for.

    • BigE91

      One would think that a grown man commenting would get his facts correct before calling out the wrong person. Even a high school blogger has more integrity than that.

    • cableguy - 2nd Tier Fan

      What are the odds “Dave” returns to man up for his brain fart?

      20-1? 50-1?

      On this fine Christmas Eve, i will leave Dave with a few words of advice:

      Please avoid that level of absolute crap writing and angle in the future. You are a grown man writing, not a high school boy looking for approval from a peer group.

    • Quicksilver ballet

      English teacher? or a knuckle dragger? The later I would dare to say. When you have the years of experience that Mr Brownlee has writing and reporting you might want to think that he doesn’t put pen to paper without a little forethought as to what he is about to write? Lack of Integrity. The man reeks of it if you have ever taken the time to read his columns here and elsewhere. When you become the next Pulitzer Prize winner how about you keep your opinions more in line with the substance of the article rather than the substance of the writer.

      I love Christmas.

    • Romulus' Apotheosis

      Leaving aside the gross misattribution…

      You’ve made the same argumentative mistake that many make regarding the distinction between “explanations of the case (whatever it may be)” and “excuses for the case (whatever it may be).”

      A lot of people mix these two up and get uptight with journalists/commentators/pundits/etc… but see if you can spot the material difference between the following:

      1) the factors x, y and z contributed to t committing s. ie. booze contributed to t crashing his car.

      2) t may have committed s but t’s culpability is mitigated by x, y and z. ie. but he was drunk!! implying that he’s not culpable.

      In the first someone is merely explaining how something came to be. It is helpful to know the causes of effects deemed dangerous and antisocial in order to curb and control behavior going forward – ie. drinking and driving is a bad idea. In the second someone is trying to excuse behavior – ie. because he was drunk he’s not responsible.

      You’re claiming that because Willis explains how Milbury’s past and fame/notoriety has created a perception about him, he will not be afforded the benefit of the doubt in the mind of the pubic, that he has somehow condemned Milbury to that fate… sloppy reasoning.

      Willis was responsible… he wrote a reasonable piece.

      I’m happy not to be reasonable. Milbury is a grade A fool. His judgment is poor at the best of times, he somehow manages to combine belligerence and petulance in equal measure like an overgrown child but his worst sin is that he is simply unlikable. I’ve never seen him enjoy anything on tv. His only register is disparagement. If this ends his broadcasting career I’ll celebrate the happy accident of what was probably an overzealous pair of parents and an extremely litigious culture.

  • D

    Dave: Shame on you for hammering Robin, you should retract your statement and apologize immediately. If I remember the story to which you are referring to correctly, Willis commented on the story, added in some televised shenanigans of MM, and also showed via bloggers and twitters how unpopular MM is, and that may affect his future negatively. Unless you read into it more than I did, Willis simply stated facts and offered opinion as to the popularity of a public figure. How is this any different than most other stories? Who knows, maybe I didn’t read into it enough.

  • Rob...

    Quick, someone change the subject… how about that picture of a Christmas present on the Tilted Kilt advertisement? I mean it’s wrapped in red and white, has what looks like a bow in front of it, and if I got to open that for Christmas I’d be thrilled.


    When you read about an adult ‘assaulting’ a child I admit it is hard not to get judgemental cuz thats just not right. Robin in the sake of fairnesss posted a link to Milbury’s side of the story and after reading that it didnt sound as bad as first thought. This was blown out of proportion cuz of who Mike Milbury is.

  • ubermiguel

    The point of Willis’ original article still stands: “that’s why he reaction to the incident, which has been overwhelmingly hostile to Milbury, has less to do with what Milbury did at his son’s hockey game than it does with what he’s done with his time in the public eye.”