# Rugby League Louts



## Calliope (12 March 2009)

Brett Stewart, Manly fullback and NRL star has been stood down for the next four weeks after the NRL took it's toughest stance to yet to save the game's battered image after a decade of scandal. He has been charged with sexually assaulting a 17 year old girl.

The last, and only league player to be forcibly benched by the NRL's top official was Julian O'Neill in 1999. O'Neill carried out some of the most disgusting acts seen in NRL players'  history of bad behaviour, mainly, but not always caused by drunkenness. Over 80 incidents have been attributed to booze. The clubs have done little to stop this behaviour.

Strangely, only one player has ended up in jail. Is acceptance of this behaviour part of our culture?

It is said that these people are role models for our young people. The NRL had certainly spent a lot of money promoting Stewart in this image


----------



## investorpaul (12 March 2009)

There all a disgrace if they cant hold their grog or go out without needing to get drunk then they dont deserve all the money they earn. The NRL needs to get tougher.

Role models..... what a joke. If i had a kid i wouldnt want them anywhere near the sport


----------



## white_goodman (12 March 2009)

Calliope said:


> Brett Stewart, Manly fullback and NRL star has been stood down for the next four weeks after the NRL took it's toughest stance to yet to save the game's battered image after a decade of scandal. He has been charged with sexually assaulting a 17 year old girl.
> 
> The last, and only league player to be forcibly benched by the NRL's top official was Julian O'Neill in 1999. O'Neill carried out some of the most disgusting acts seen in NRL players'  history of bad behaviour, mainly, but not always caused by drunkenness. Over 80 incidents have been attributed to booze. The clubs have done little to stop this behaviour.
> 
> ...




only idiots have rugby league players as role models, they are idiots and bogans of society... and yes i played representative league for a long time so im not against the game itself..


----------



## metric (12 March 2009)

if youve never done anything STUPID whilst on the grog, you have never drank much. i think ALL the stupid things ive done have been whilest under the influence...except perhaps invest in cnp, but i knew the risks.

some of the time people do these STUPID things whilst 'blacked out' under the influence. they have no recall of what they have done... ever. they do things they would never entertain doing while sober. and thats what stuart did. blacked out, drunk, did something stupid, and cant remember it.

he's about to learn a harsh lesson for something he didnt 'conciously' do. his real crime was drinking to excess....but where is the law on that?

both stuart and the girl will suffer.....meanwhile, grog is served in ever increasing hours, and ruining more families and communities.

some people may claim they can handle it....but EVERYONE who is a drinker has done something stupid. i dont care what they say.

"let he whom is without sin, cast the first stone.." 'he' would be a tea total..
.


.


----------



## nomore4s (12 March 2009)

What I don't understand is why he was out getting so blind a week before the first game of the season.

Stupid man imo, deserves everything that follow now.


----------



## metric (12 March 2009)

> What I don't understand is why he was out getting so blind a week before the first game of the season.




a week ....!!!

when i was playing for harden vs temora on a cold, sleety, windswept day....at halftime the forwards (of my team) downed a flagon of plonk. us backs werent allowed to have any.....

back on the field, in the first scrum, the temora forwards exclamed "holy s$%^, you blokes stink of #%$*** grog" to much laughter....


.


----------



## investorpaul (12 March 2009)

metric said:


> if youve never done anything STUPID whilst on the grog, you have never drank much. i think ALL the stupid things ive done have been whilest under the influence...except perhaps invest in cnp, but i knew the risks.
> 
> some of the time people do these STUPID things whilst 'blacked out' under the influence. they have no recall of what they have done... ever. they do things they would never entertain doing while sober. and thats what stuart did. blacked out, drunk, did something stupid, and cant remember it.
> 
> ...



So because he was drunk and "cant remember" its ok he sexually assaulted a girl???

Sure everyone does things they regret when there drunk but there is a difference between saying something stupid to a mate or throwing up in a cab than sexually assaulting someone


----------



## metric (12 March 2009)

investorpaul said:


> So because he was drunk and "cant remember" its ok he sexually assaulted a girl???
> 
> Sure everyone does things they regret when there drunk but there is a difference between saying something stupid to a mate or throwing up in a cab than sexually assaulting someone




i didnt say it was ok....


.


----------



## Prospector (12 March 2009)

metric said:


> if youve never done anything STUPID whilst on the grog, you have never drank much. i think ALL the stupid things ive done have been whilest under the influence...except perhaps invest in cnp, but i knew the risks.
> .




We are talking about sexual assault here, not just stupid things people do when they are pissed!  Cast the first stone?  I am betting most of the people on this forum have been drunk at some stage but would never ever even contemplate sexually assaulting a girl.

Picture this.  Your 17 year old daughter is outside your family home, having a smoke and talking on her mobile when this 'thing' forces himself on her and you and other people have to drag this monster off her .  She has ALREADY SUFFERED! Reporting it can only make it better for her!
How can you even think that this is just a case of boys being drunk doing stupid things!  When this is proven in court he will GO TO JAIL!


Too much money, too little education, too few brain cells, too much time on their hands, too much booze - sounds like Rugby League!


----------



## nomore4s (12 March 2009)

metric said:


> a week ....!!!
> 
> when i was playing for harden vs temora on a cold, sleety, windswept day....at halftime the forwards (of my team) downed a flagon of plonk. us backs werent allowed to have any.....
> 
> back on the field, in the first scrum, the temora forwards exclamed "holy s$%^, you blokes stink of #%$*** grog" to much laughter....




You weren't a fulltime highly paid professional league player though.


----------



## dutchie (12 March 2009)

Prospector said:


> Too much money, too little education, too few brain cells, too much time on their hands, too much booze - sounds like Rugby League!




Unfortunately this is a pretty good definition of Rugby League.

These blocks are professional sportsman and role models.

But they don't act that way.

Most Rugby League players do not have the ability to think things through and it it should therefore be the responsibility of the administration and each club to do their thinking for them.

Firstly since these blokes are supposedly professionals there should be a total ban on the consumption of alcohol and drugs.
Too tough? Then don't become a professional - simple as that.
One strike and your out.
Banned players not eligible to play in other countries.

Each player should be educated/ guided in investing his hard earned pay - playing days won't last for ever.

Each player should be educated/ guided into a back up career if injured or retired.

Each play should be educated/ guided into acting appropriately in public and giving back to society and junior players.

This is a minimum requirement and anything else is a band aid solution.


----------



## tigerboi (12 March 2009)

*Re:innocent til proven guilty*

As usual lots have stewart already guilty..,the legal principal of innocent til proven guilty applies in all cases so all the would be judges best wait until the courts deal with the matter thats if he can get a fair hearing at all now.

No one has mentioned why a 17 year old was smoking?

yes i played rugby league for many years & only have a drink once in a blue moon,i found that it affects your performance big time.

i believe he should have been allowed to play until it is proven either way what happened.

david gallop is a lawyer & he hasnt followed proper due process in this case,btw bundy sponsor the metro cup.

my worth


----------



## Julia (12 March 2009)

*Re: innocent til proven guilty*



tigerboi said:


> No one has mentioned why a 17 year old was smoking?



Why would they???
What on earth does that have to do with the subject?
Surely you're not going to start on "let's blame the victim", (as if smoking had suddenly become sexually provocative anyway!)


----------



## investorpaul (12 March 2009)

*Re: innocent til proven guilty*



nomore4s said:


> You weren't a fulltime highly paid professional league player though.






tigerboi said:


> As usual lots have stewart already guilty..,the legal principal of innocent til proven guilty applies in all cases so all the would be judges best wait until the courts deal with the matter thats if he can get a fair hearing at all now.
> 
> No one has mentioned why a 17 year old was smoking?
> 
> ...




My understanding of the law is that you are allowed to smoke over the age of 16, you just cant buy the ciggies yourself until you reach 18.


----------



## metric (12 March 2009)

> When this is proven in court he will GO TO JAIL!




prospector....IF it is proven, i doubt very much he will go to jail. 

perhaps you have more detail? 
there are no suggestions anyones clothes were removed? 
was it a 'groping' incident?

lets get past the inflamatory wording of the charges....what really happened?



.


----------



## Trembling Hand (12 March 2009)

*Re: innocent til proven guilty*



tigerboi said:


> No one has mentioned why a 17 year old was smoking?


----------



## investorpaul (12 March 2009)

metric said:


> prospector....IF it is proven, i doubt very much he will go to jail.
> 
> perhaps you have more detail?
> there are no suggestions anyones clothes were removed?
> ...



even if it was groping he should go to jail for 3 or 6 months, maybe then he will wake up to the fact that he is a role model and should act like one.

Alot of kids look up to these guys and what message do you think it sends if the headline reads - NRL star let off sexual assault. Then the next week some other random gets sent to jail for the same thing. 

They are "protected" by our weak legal system and he should be immediately banned from playing NRL until the outcome of the trial is heard. If he is found guilty he should be thrown in jail and banned from any involvement in the game for the rest of his life


----------



## Prospector (12 March 2009)

*Re: innocent til proven guilty*



tigerboi said:


> As usual lots have stewart already guilty..,the legal principal of innocent til proven guilty applies in all cases so all the would be judges best wait until the courts deal with the matter thats if he can get a fair hearing at all now.
> 
> No one has mentioned why a 17 year old was smoking?



Yes tigerboi, that was our first reaction too, it is easy to set these league players up to claims of rape because, let's face it, they put themselves in such compromising positions.  Continually.  But as soon as I heard that there were other witnesses involved, who had to pull this guy off the girl, well, that rather says something else than innocent to me.  They weren't alone in a room, they werent drinking together, they werent even socialising together.  She was just 'in his way'!

As for the girl smoking, what on earth, does that have to do with anything? 

It is quite common to stand people down from their positions in times when a serious crime is reported.  He is not being treated diferently to others.  No doubt he still gets all his pay, and his grog.


----------



## metric (12 March 2009)

investorpaul said:


> even if it was groping he should go to jail for 3 or 6 months, maybe then he will wake up to the fact that he is a role model and should act like one.
> 
> Alot of kids look up to these guys and what message do you think it sends if the headline reads - NRL star let off sexual assault. Then the next week some other random gets sent to jail for the same thing.
> 
> They are "protected" by our weak legal system and he should be immediately banned from playing NRL until the outcome of the trial is heard. If he is found guilty he should be thrown in jail and banned from any involvement in the game for the rest of his life




rubbish. if it was a groping incident, the penalty of prison would be way to hard....


----------



## Prospector (12 March 2009)

metric said:


> prospector....IF it is proven, i doubt very much he will go to jail.
> 
> perhaps you have more detail?
> there are no suggestions anyones clothes were removed?
> ...




Um the inflammatory wording of the charges is exactly what he is charged with - sexual assault.  Clothes do not have to be removed for sexual assault, that isnt what defines the offence.


----------



## metric (12 March 2009)

Prospector said:


> Um the inflammatory wording of the charges is exactly what he is charged with - sexual assault.  Clothes do not have to be removed for sexual assault, that isnt what defines the offence.




so there is no difference between planting an unwanted kiss, or sexual penetration? getting a little excited arent you?

measure what he did wrong, not the wording of the charge...


.


----------



## investorpaul (12 March 2009)

metric said:


> rubbish. if it was a groping incident, the penalty of prison would be way to hard....




So if it was your sister, mother or daughter you would want him to get a $1000 fine or some other weak punishment. Lock him up if hes guilty for as long as possible


----------



## investorpaul (12 March 2009)

metric said:


> so there is no difference between planting an unwanted kiss, or sexual penetration? getting a little excited arent you?
> 
> measure what he did wrong, not the wording of the charge...
> 
> ...




Dont forget many sickos out there start with groping and other "low range stuff" and a few years later are beating and raping women. Throw them in jail and lose the key!


----------



## metric (12 March 2009)

investorpaul said:


> So if it was your sister, mother or daughter you would want him to get a $1000 fine or some other weak punishment. Lock him up if hes guilty for as long as possible




i wouldnt destroy a mans life over an unwanted kiss, no. id probably arrange to have him flogged....lol


.


----------



## investorpaul (12 March 2009)

metric said:


> i wouldnt destroy a mans life over an unwanted kiss, no. id probably arrange to have him flogged....lol
> 
> 
> .




lol i would rather jail than a flogging, although it would stop them having a "pretty boy" image with a few scars


----------



## Prospector (12 March 2009)

metric said:


> rubbish. if it was a groping incident, the penalty of prison would be way to hard....



95% of proven sexual assaults in NSW receive prison terms.  The average sentence in a guilty plea is 4.5 years, for a non guilty plea, 6.5 years.  Aggravated sexual assault attracts a higher sentence.  Indecent assault (groping) attracts an everage sentence of around 9 months.



metric said:


> measure what he did wrong, not the wording of the charge...




What dont you get here, the wording of the charge defines the seriousness of the offence!  You are talking about indecent assault (which still attracts a jail term by the way); he has been charged with sexual assault.


----------



## metric (12 March 2009)

so 1 in 20 dont....lol

with the lawyers, money, and personal history on his side, i doubt he will be of the 95%, even if he is found guilty.

the girls father is a real interesting charactor.....crimminal compensation?


.


----------



## Prospector (12 March 2009)

Ha, get this, he wasnt banned because of the allegations, but because of this:
He said Stewart was banned not because of the charge but because he ignored his duty to the game when he was refused service and later thrown out of the Manly Wharf Hotel two days after launching the new season.

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/new...in-stewart-case/2009/03/12/1236447343658.html

Yeah, you are right  metric, he has a great personal history on his side ; and because of it they should throw away the key!


----------



## metric (12 March 2009)

prospector. if you have read stewart has a crimminal history, please provide a link....

otherwise, as an australian representitive player, etc, etc, etc, certaily carries weight. so does former good behaviour.

im sure a good judge will be allocated to see this matter.


.


----------



## nomore4s (12 March 2009)

metric said:


> im sure a good judge will be allocated to see this matter.




What do you mean by this? A judge who supports Manly perhaps?:


----------



## Prospector (12 March 2009)

metric said:


> prospector. if you have read stewart has a crimminal history, please provide a link....
> otherwise, as an australian representitive player, etc, etc, etc, certaily carries weight. so does former good behaviour.
> im sure a good judge will be allocated to see this matter.




You are kidding, right?  You really think being an Australian representative player (in a sport that only Australia plays) carries any weight at all in a Court of Law?  I didnt say he had a criminal history by the way!  Well, not yet.  Good character, well, let's see about that!


----------



## investorpaul (12 March 2009)

metric said:


> prospector. if you have read stewart has a crimminal history, please provide a link....
> 
> otherwise, as an australian representitive player, etc, etc, etc, certaily carries weight. so does former good behaviour.
> 
> ...




Him playing in such a rubbish sport is even more reason to send him to jail


----------



## Macquack (12 March 2009)

Prospector said:


> (in a sport that only Australia plays)




Prospector, Stewart plays Rugby League, not Aussie Rules.


----------



## Prospector (12 March 2009)

Macquack said:


> Prospector, Stewart plays Rugby League, not Aussie Rules.



Ah yeah, I know that.

Rugby League is only played in 2 Australian states.  Rugby Union is the International Rugby game, league is just a, well, I wont use the word I want to, modified version.  Rugby League barely raises a blimp on the International sport forum!  Rugby Union is the only Rugby that counts.


----------



## JMcDog (12 March 2009)

Sounds like a kangaroo court to me....  

Don't underestimate what a good legal team will be capable of either.

1.  He's a Type I diabetic....  medical ramifications + alcohol etc
2.  His reputation/history will work in his favour (rather than against him)
3.  Seems DNA testing has come back negative....
4.  Appear to be credibility issues with victim + family???

If he is found guilty...  I very much doubt he will get a jail sentence. 

I, for one, will reserve judgement until the full story comes out.

Cheers,  JM


----------



## spooly74 (12 March 2009)

Prospector said:


> Ah yeah, I know that.
> 
> *Rugby League is only played in 2 Australian states*.  Rugby Union is the International Rugby game, league is just a, well, I wont use the word I want to, modified version.  Rugby League barely raises a blimp on the International sport forum!  Rugby Union is the only Rugby that counts.




It's played in 4 states, and some games in NZ.

Maybe you should watch it, you might like it


----------



## Luthien (12 March 2009)

I have 3 sons and I'm extremely happy they keep well away from AFL and Rugby. This latest news story is just another in a very very long line.  The players are not heroes or role models - they simply play football very well. Not interested in them otherwise. 

My personal experience comes from growing up as a young girl in a country Victorian town where football and players were, and still are, idolised. It's not only senior league players that act like this, plenty of country footballers are louts but don’t get the media attention. They all seem to enjoy letting their hair down on footy trips overseas (esp Bali).

I don’t miss the stubby drinking, foul mouthed, sexually aggressive louts that congregated in the local pubs on Saturday evenings during footy season.


----------



## Prospector (12 March 2009)

spooly74 said:


> It's played in 3 states, and some games in NZ.
> 
> Maybe you should watch it, you might like it




Oh yes, Melbourne Storm?  Well, that makes all the difference!   If NZ is the best you can do to make it an International sport, well then   I do watch it, I like to see the State of Origin match; watching these men with funny ears and noses try to ground the ball. Sticking fingers into places that dont need them.  Star tackles and the like. Silly stuff.  :

No doubt the courts will sort out the evidence and determine the outcome.  If he is diabetic and consumes alcohol to excess, well, he is his own enemy, and is in self destruct mode anyway, isn't he!


----------



## metric (12 March 2009)

if i read the promo on today tonight correctly, it seems the girl is actually a bikini model....

so if 'only' a grope it was, at least he had taste. if it had of been a horror, id have jailed him myself...lol

.


----------



## Prospector (12 March 2009)

metric said:


> if i read the promo on today tonight correctly, it seems the girl is actually a bikini model....
> 
> so if 'only' a grope it was, at least he had taste. if it had of been a horror, id have jailed him myself...lol
> 
> .



Do you have any idea how offensive that post is to women and I suspect most of the men in this forum?  Does the word Consent even enter into your vocab?


----------



## metric (12 March 2009)

oh, lighten up prospector....

its just a discussion topic.

.


----------



## metric (12 March 2009)

your case is getting shakey prospector...

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25176877-421,00.html


----------



## Prospector (12 March 2009)

metric said:


> your case is getting shakey prospector...
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25176877-421,00.html






Prospector said:


> Yes tigerboi, that was our first reaction too, it is easy to set these league players up to claims of rape because, let's face it, they put themselves in such compromising positions.  Continually.  *But as soon as I heard that there were other witnesses involved, who had to pull this guy off the girl, well, that rather says something else than innocent to me. *




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25176698-2722,00.html?from=public_rss
“We believe we have enough physical evidence and eyewitness reports to proceed with the case against Mr Stewart,” a senior police source told The Australian

DNA is one part of the evidence, witness reports another, physical injury another.  There is apparently video footage.  People have been convicted of all sorts of crimes before DNA technology was available.  And people have been convicted of sexual assault in the total absence of DNA evidence, particularly when there is a period of time between reporting.


----------



## Calliope (12 March 2009)

These men are trained to injure and maim consenting opponents on the field. The more the "biff" the more their supporters love it. They are conditioned to believe that bad behaviour is good and they are paid well for it.

It is not surprising that the knuckledraggers among them, when drunk, think they have a licence to practise their brand of skills on bystanders. 

They have support at high levels. It is not surprising that complaints to the police by women victims usually get nowhere, especially in their home city.


----------



## metric (12 March 2009)

the video footage is of stewart wrestling with the alleged victims dad.....who has been to in and out of jail for hundreds of thousands of dollars in fraud schemes.


.


----------



## Prospector (12 March 2009)

metric said:


> the video footage is of stewart wrestling with the alleged victims dad.....who has been to in and out of jail for hundreds of thousands of dollars in fraud schemes.




Nope, I think this is a different one - the neighbour filmed the courtyard when he heard screams:
http://yass.yourguide.com.au/news/n...leadership-ignored-gallops-pleas/1456935.aspx
_The police didn't wait for the DNA evidence, they had instead web camera footage taken from a neighbour's villa. A neighbour had filmed the common courtyard area last Friday night when he heard screams._

  But the father's history is of no relevance for his daughter's attack.  Funny though how bad things happen to particular groups of people.  

There are obviously inependent witnesses involved.  Their story is critical.  Filmed evidence is better.

We have to wait now for the court process to unfold, and the evidence revealed and tested.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 March 2009)

OK I've sat back and listened and read all you twee guys and hairy legged feminists and would like to put in my 2 bobsworth.

First a declaration, I support The NQ Cowboys and The Manly Sea Eagles.

When they clash I sit back and celebrate the winner.

IMHO they are the 2 greatest teams in the NRL.

Now for some harden up therapy for you weasels who are prone to judge and condemn before the process of judgement has been fulfilled.

Rugby League is about aggression and winning. 

Finding a mate is similar, although wooing helps.

I would agree that Alcohol, Marijuana, Ekkies, Cocaine and Amphetamines have changed the mix. But those stimulants are profligate at non NRL functions.

The line between welcome pre intercourse and sexual harassment/assault is a fine one. It has always been thus.

As is a good and a bad tackle and a good try.

Anyone involved in NRL realises this.

You posters need to harden up and wait for the umpires decision.

Rugby League is a beaut game, and the NRL is too quick to punish high testosterone players.

gg


----------



## white_goodman (12 March 2009)

rugby league players are retraded douches yes, but its amazing reading the biased opinions coming from you guys, not hard to see who failed epicly at all sports when they were growing up...


----------



## Prospector (12 March 2009)

white_goodman said:


> not hard to see who failed epicly at all sports when they were growing up...




And that is relevant to this because.......

And GG, you dont have to be a hairy legged feminist or twee guy to have an -ve opinion about rugby league.  Fortunately the Courts are in a better position to review all the evidence, without any bias, than either the NRL or supporters of this sport.  Or us.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 March 2009)

white_goodman said:


> rugby league players are retraded douches yes, but its amazing reading the biased opinions coming from you guys, not hard to see who failed epicly at all sports when they were growing up...






Prospector said:


> And that is relevant to this because.......
> 
> And GG, you dont have to be a hairy legged feminist or twee guy to have an -ve opinion about rugby league.  Fortunately the Courts are in a better position to review all the evidence, without any bias, than either the NRL or supporters of this sport.  Or us.




I reckon you guys wouldn't know a Rugby League club if it fell on you.

When was the last time you went to a game.

When was the last time you went to a club.

Are you 2 blokes a member of any NRL Club?

I doubt it.

NRL is a working man's game not a commentators game. And the girls who go there are the wives, girlfriends, mothers and daughters of working people, so don't dump on them.

gg


----------



## Prospector (12 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I reckon you guys wouldn't know a Rugby League club if it fell on you.
> 
> When was the last time you went to a game.
> 
> ...




God GG you sound like Mr Rudd and his "working people" glorification as salt of the earth!   So, that means they are above reproach whatever they do?

What is a 'working people'?  Someone who simply works a 38 hour week?  Like most of us do? Or is it more than that.

Rugby league never really made it past the NSW border thank God, although Victoria likes to play a little with it.  Rugby Union is more the go here.   Have been to the South Sydney Leagues club, not impressed.  I go to the Rugby 7's matches held in Adelaide (in a couple of weeks) but thankfully the culture of Rugby league has never permeated our state.

And I'm not a guy!


----------



## Stormin_Norman (12 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> OK I've sat back and listened and read all you twee guys and hairy legged feminists and would like to put in my 2 bobsworth.
> 
> First a declaration, I support The NQ Cowboys and The Manly Sea Eagles.
> 
> ...






Garpal Gumnut said:


> I reckon you guys wouldn't know a Rugby League club if it fell on you.
> 
> When was the last time you went to a game.
> 
> ...




that has to be the lol-post-of-the-year.


----------



## white_goodman (12 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I reckon you guys wouldn't know a Rugby League club if it fell on you.
> 
> When was the last time you went to a game.
> 
> ...




i actually played repped footy for manly league and union, went to last years grand final ,the year before that, 97, 96, 95, played jim beam cup in the local team... 

and if you support nth qld and manly you are not a supporter whatsoever...

and after all that experience i can say for a fact rugby league players as a general rule are retarded idiots, just a bunch of fobs and illiterates... Brett Stewart known to be semi-illiterate when he came to the club at 18


----------



## Stormin_Norman (12 March 2009)

how'd u escape goodman?


----------



## cuttlefish (12 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I reckon you guys wouldn't know a Rugby League club if it fell on you.
> 
> When was the last time you went to a game.
> 
> ...





GG the working class multi-millionaire ...   

I'm disgusted with the way the Manly club has closed ranks around Stewart - these blokes will never get the message - as long as the fraternity keeps slapping 'em on the back and saying hard luck mate this will just keep going on.

I went to a few Manly games last year, definitely won't be this year I'm fed up with this garbage from the NRL.


----------



## white_goodman (12 March 2009)

Stormin_Norman said:


> how'd u escape goodman?




uni lectures being the same time as training nights 'saved' me, plus i grew out of it, no passion for it...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 March 2009)

Stormin_Norman said:


> how'd u escape goodman?






cuttlefish said:


> GG the working class multi-millionaire ...
> 
> I'm disgusted with the way the Manly club has closed ranks around Stewart - these blokes will never get the message - as long as the fraternity keeps slapping 'em on the back and saying hard luck mate this will just keep going on.
> 
> I went to a few Manly games last year, definitely won't be this year I'm fed up with this garbage from the NRL.






white_goodman said:


> uni lectures being the same time as training nights 'saved' me, plus i grew out of it, no passion for it...




It never ceases to amaze me how many very very rich people enjoy NRL anonymously, and how many folk who think they are better than the ordinary punter dump on working class people by bagging NRL, going to uni, finding global warming or moving to Byron Bay.

gg


----------



## ned_beaty (12 March 2009)

Yeah well, This is ****!!

Manly supporter through and through but I am majorly pissed off about this. I don't see why they would want to let their players get pissed at season launch. Bound to end in tears, and this time not just tears but a nightmare, for all involved.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (12 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how many very very rich people enjoy NRL anonymously




i wouldnt admit to it either.


----------



## Solly (12 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how many very very rich people enjoy NRL anonymously, and how many folk who think they are better than the ordinary punter dump on working class people by bagging NRL, going to uni, finding global warming or moving to Byron Bay.
> 
> gg





Let's face it gg NRL is a dumb game for mindless morons & most NRL players are d*ckheads...
Anyway can't post now, got to go, Fatty's having a rave at the start of the Footy Show about problems with booze in the game.....


----------



## Julia (12 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> OK I've sat back and listened and read all you twee guys and hairy legged feminists and would like to put in my 2 bobsworth.
> 
> First a declaration, I support The NQ Cowboys and The Manly Sea Eagles.
> 
> ...



I can't see how it matters what the bloke in question (can't even remember his name, that's how important he is on my horizon) does for a living, or what football code he's involved with.

The charge of sexual assault doesn't have anything to do with his occupation.
If a bloke sexually assaults a female, then he deserves to be charged.
Presumably the police have video evidence of what occurred or they wouldn't have been so quick to lay the charge.

For god's sake, stop excusing drunken insulting and assaulting behaviour because the idjit concerned runs around a muddy paddock after a ball.
Just get real about what sexual assault means.

And don't further downgrade your clearly questionable judgement by describing any woman, e.g. Prospector, and now me,  who calls you on your comments, a "hairy legged feminist".  
In other words, fellas, try playing the argument, not the person.

And gg, although I've quoted your post, I'm by no means suggesting you're the only poster in this thread who needs a re-arrangement of their thoughts as far as women are concerned.

That said, let's wait for what the court decides.  I just find it abhorrent that if this character has in fact assaulted the girl, he could be even slightly excused because he's a sportsperson of whatever type.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 March 2009)

Solly said:


> Let's face it gg NRL is a dumb game for mindless morons & most NRL players are d*ckheads...
> Anyway can't post now, got to go, Fatty's having a rave at the start of the Footy Show about problems with booze in the game.....




Thanks Solly,

You make a good point about the Footy show.

Fatty dumped on the Cowboys some years ago and is persona non grata north of Plane Creek.

He is a Tosser, the Footy Show is full of Tossers and you will be in good company watching it.

And mate when you next show your face in a NQ RL Club for a good feed and good conversation with Workers, don't bring Fatty with you.

You might get "tackled"

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (12 March 2009)

I'm not a big follower of Rugby League but I think there have been a fair few louts in every code of football.

I don't know enough of the facts in this situation to comment.


----------



## white_goodman (12 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> It never ceases to amaze me how many very very rich people enjoy NRL anonymously, and how many folk who think they are better than the ordinary punter dump on working class people by bagging NRL, going to uni, finding global warming or moving to Byron Bay.
> 
> gg




mate dont assume things, ive already proven how wrong ur assumptions are... and for that matter my whole family is working class, just wealthy-ish blue collar


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 March 2009)

white_goodman said:


> mate dont assume things, ive already proven how wrong ur assumptions are... and for that matter my whole family is working class, just wealthy-ish blue collar




Sorry mate , your a king, I don't include you with us common men and women.

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (12 March 2009)

Even though it doesn't involve a Rugby League player.

Looks like a step forward.

*Carey 'face of anti-domestic violence'*
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25166475-5005961,00.html

FORMER footballer Wayne Carey could be the face of a new campaign to combat domestic violence.

The North Melbourne champion had talks with domestic violence campaigner and one-time Federal MP Phil Cleary about supporting the cause to end violence against women. 

Mr Cleary told 3AW today the pair had chatted during a luncheon last Friday. 

Mr Cleary said Carey told him: "I would do anything with you in the future on this question."


----------



## Prospector (13 March 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> GG the working class multi-millionaire ...       .




Yep, and the same poster who started up a Rich Mans thread for people with net assets over $5million only because he was sick of hearing how the working class was spending their Rudd handout.

Gumby Learner, Carey glassed his girlfriend and assaulted police in the US.  Do you really think that people take him seriously?  Wonder if his repentance has anything to do with avoiding jail?  The average bloke would think he is some kind of twit.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 March 2009)

Prospector said:


> Yep, and the same poster who started up a Rich Mans thread for people with net assets over $5million only because he was sick of hearing how the working class was spending their Rudd handout.
> 
> Gumby Learner, Carey glassed his girlfriend and assaulted police in the US.  Do you really think that people take him seriously?  Wonder if his repentance has anything to do with avoiding jail?  The average bloke would think he is some kind of twit.




You would be astounded  how many workers are millionaires, and stay close to their roots ( I like to keep my roots close ). Railway, tradies, contractors and labourers.

The new class of middle class background in guvment jobs live like kings off honest folks taxes, vote Green, go to meetings and seminars and sweat over the titbits that Richie Rich Rudd tosses them.

The workers are watching, but now that they are doing better will leave the revolution go for the moment.

gg


----------



## Stan 101 (13 March 2009)

Okay, I've been thinking of this theory to stop this rubbish with intoxicated players for some time. The way I see it there are 3 options:

*1. Continue with the staus quo and have the NRL battle the unneeded press.*

- Parents will move to restrict their children from playing and watching the game. There are a multitude of sports NRL competes with for the junior ranks.

- Sponsors will walk. There is 1 club standing on it's own feet at present and that doesn't look to change any time soon.

- The cost of cleaning up the mess of the bad press must be enormous. Management meetings, press releases & legal guidance all rob the coffers of the NRL.


*2. Full alcohol ban. All players are paid and treated as elite athletes and it is written into their contracts a full abstinence clause.*

- Sponsorship from alcohol businesses will drop off and the shortfall would need to be picked up. Quality sponsors may get on board if the model is seen to be succeeding.

- There could be a mass exodus from the player ranks to greener, wetter and tastier pastures. The NRL would need to brace until a new generation of non binge drinking athletes were lured to the sport.

- On the positive side, athletes may become fitter and stronger without alcohol, possibly taking the game to new heights in speed and stamina.

- The NRL coffers could be spared from dealing with bad press and legal action. These funds could be funnelled through to juniors and the clubs.


3. *Cancel the no alcohol rule during the training / playing season and treat the players as adults who must make their own decisions based on sound judgement.*

- Have players employed by the club 7 days a week for the period of the season.

- Set a minimum fitness level for all club players. If these standards drop (failing one test, two tests in a row or similar), the NRL steps in and forces the player into the reserve grade. These tests could be a baseline Vo2 max threshold or similar. These tests are to be audited independant of the clubs. Possibly a commercial third party, university, or in house NRL staff.

- Players are free to drink as they see fit. They can have their 3 or 4 beers a night and the occasional 6-8 at the bbq with the mates. Athletes know their own body.

- As a 7 day a week employee of the club, they must present at a designated meeting place at a set time (8.30am) each morning and be breath tested by an independent auditor. Again failures should be treated harshly as in any workplace. 
Three failures to pass the breath test will have a penalty as harsh as a drink driving conviction. IE: a 12 month suspension from the game and a significant fine based on median player salary.

- This will require 15 auditors 7 days a week. Offer the auditor $80k pa and have them turned over regularly to prevent any nefarious doings with player / official.

- Funding for auditors would come from funds in the current NRL budget for legal expenses and messy cleanups they no doubt need to account for.

- Players are seen as real people, they feel like real people and won't need to binge to release the pent up frustration of beig alcohol free for weeks on end.

- Less idiot behaviour will lead to greater quality sponsorship. The Alcohol companies will be happy to push their sponsorship dollars and parents might just be a little more comfortable in having their children play the game knowing that sensible drinking is condoned.

I await the critiques.


cheers,


----------



## Julia (13 March 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Even though it doesn't involve a Rugby League player.
> 
> Looks like a step forward.
> 
> ...



What a pathetic attempt to re-establish some sort of credibility!
But sadly, the fans will still be there and will not see through this hypocrisy.


----------



## Prospector (14 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You would be astounded  how many workers are millionaires, and stay close to their roots ( I like to keep my roots close ). Railway, tradies, contractors and labourers.




No, I wouldnt be suprised at all GG, I have met a lot of them in working with their Businesses.  But it seems to me that if you want to stay true to your roots, which, in this context means rugby league style behaviours in the clubs etc, in the past their behaviours were 'excused' - well, they are the salt of the earth, the working class blah blah; that no longer is the case for most of them, so such loutish behaviours are no longer acceptable or excusable.  Rich boys playing bad are far worse than poor ones!



Julia said:


> What a pathetic attempt to re-establish some sort of credibility!
> But sadly, the fans will still be there and will not see through this hypocrisy.




Thankfully, the opposite is happening Julia - the fans see him for the tool he is;  being found in a compromising situation with his best friends wife in their bathroom at a club function tends to kill off all respect!

The alcohol ban is really difficult to police.  A total ban means that just 1 beer could see a player rubbed out.  I think what is the ridiculous thing in this case, is that it was the CLUB who put on the booze fest.  That is why they were fined. The league clubs just dont get it!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (14 March 2009)

Prospector said:


> No, I wouldnt be suprised at all GG, I have met a lot of them in working with their Businesses.  But it seems to me that if you want to stay true to your roots, which, in this context means rugby league style behaviours in the clubs etc, in the past their behaviours were 'excused' - well, they are the salt of the earth, the working class blah blah; that no longer is the case for most of them, so such loutish behaviours are no longer acceptable or excusable.  Rich boys playing bad are far worse than poor ones!
> 
> 
> 
> ...





There seems to be no comment on the behaviour of some girls and women at Pubs, Clubs and Functions.

The common decision is now that no matter what the behaviour of the female, the bloke is guilty if she decides that she's tired of the attention.

I feel sorry for these RL players, filled up with testosterone all week training and playing and then having to be monks at the Saturday night piss up.

gg


----------



## white_goodman (14 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There seems to be no comment on the behaviour of some girls and women at Pubs, Clubs and Functions.
> 
> The common decision is now that no matter what the behaviour of the female, the bloke is guilty if she decides that she's tired of the attention.
> 
> ...




that is true, lot of lutty bitches out on a saturday night


----------



## Prospector (14 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> And the girls who go there are the wives, girlfriends, mothers and daughters of working people, so don't dump on them.
> gg




AND



Garpal Gumnut said:


> There seems to be no comment on the behaviour of some girls and women at Pubs, Clubs and Functions.




=


----------



## johenmo (14 March 2009)

People can make excuses for others but if you act like a jerk, you're a jerk!  And some of the Rugby guys are jerks.  They suffer from FIGJAM syndrome.  And their "supporters" endorse it.

The career they have chosen is in the public arena and, with that come responsibilities that others don't have to face.  If they don't want to accept that, then too bad for them.

Too many of them come to believe they have demi-god status and can do what they like.  Others lead lives in the same arena and don't get in trouble.

With the adoration, income and fringe benefits that come to entertainers (includes sportspeople) it's no wonder it goes to the head of some.  But when all is said and done, that doesn't excuse bad behaviour.


----------



## bunyip (14 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There seems to be no comment on the behaviour of some girls and women at Pubs, Clubs and Functions.
> 
> The common decision is now that no matter what the behaviour of the female, the bloke is guilty if she decides that she's tired of the attention.
> 
> ...




Garpal ol' son - nobody is expecting them to be monks, but nor should they go to the other extreme by becoming animals who sexually assault women.

You and I probably got drunk a time or two in our younger days - it didn't  give us an excuse to become real mongrels and start forcing ourselves on any sheila who took our fancy.


----------



## bunyip (14 March 2009)

Rugby league players are supposed to conduct themselves as role models, but the fact is that some of these blokes are from backgrounds where decent role models are in short supply. 
NSW rugby league official Phil Gould summed it up by saying....'Some of these young fellers wouldn't know a role model if they saw one'.

Responsible behaviour has to start on the playing field. 
There are just too many idiots and incompetents at the helm of rugby league. By handing out light sentences for foul play, they allow the culture of violent on-field assaults to flourish. A player will purposely slam an elbow into the head of an opponent, or punch him or head-high tackle him or stomp on him or whatever, and he gets a slap over the wrist for it.....fined, suspended for a few games, then allowed back on the field to do it all over again. Some players have repeated the same offence four times, yet they're still allowed to play.
The only way to drastically reduce on-field violence is to impose much harsher penalties....out for half a season for the first offence, out for life if a serious offence is repeated. 

The violence in rugby league has to stop. You even see punch-ups among players 8 or 9 years old, with moronic parents yelling and egging them on from the sidelines. 
No wonder these kids turn into the next generation of rugby league thugs.
Can you imagine Roger Federer getting away with elbowing his opponent in the face! Would Tiger Woods be allowed to continue on the pro golf circuit if he habitually assaulted fellow players!
League has to stop hiding behind the excuse that it's a contact sport, therefore some rough play is unavoidable. Sure, we know that, but there's a big difference between going in hard in a tackle, and outright deliberate assault.
Increase the penalties to whatever level is needed to curb the on-field violence - that's the only way to clean up the game and force responsible on-field behaviour from players.

Off-field behaviour - same story. Zero tolerance should be the policy towards drunken brawling, hassling other patrons, sexual assaults etc. One strike and they're out - no second chance. They're dealt with by the law, they're expelled from their club, and they're banned for life from playing the game.

I was a once a very keen rugby league player. Now I don't even bother watching it on TV because I get no pleasure out of seeing brain-dead idiots indulge in the sort of thuggery that pollutes the game these days.
Not every rugby league player is a brain-dead idiot, not all of them are thugs on the field and drunken louts off the field. Some of them are excellent ambassadors for the game. 
Keep these decent blokes, get rid of the scum. You don't get rid of scum by giving them one more chance after another.
Even the best players should be permanently removed from the game if they fail to live up to decent behavioural standards both on and off the field. There are plenty of up and coming young players to replace them.


----------



## Calliope (15 March 2009)

bunyip said:


> Keep these decent blokes, get rid of the scum. You don't get rid of scum by giving them one more chance after another.
> Even the best players should be permanently removed from the game if they fail to live up to decent behavioural standards both on and off the field. There are plenty of up and coming young players to replace them.




Quite often it is the players whom the Clubs' publicity machines have have built up as being decent blokes, visiting sick children in hospitals, featuring in commercials, etc, are the ones who let us down the most. Last year some of the Brisbane Broncos' most "respected" players were involved in nasty incidents inside and outside of nightspots

One gang of three performed disgusting acts on a woman in a toilet which they captured on film. The woman's complaints weren't taken seriously by the police. The Broncos can do no wrong in Brisbane. The police minister made excuses for these louts while the police were supposed to be investigating the incident. 

Even if they did not technically break the law, their disgusting behaviour should  have seen them kicked out. Neither their club nor the NRL took any action.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 March 2009)

You basket weavers need to harden up. 

Rugby League is a dangerous, full on sport. Many of the women and girls who follow it are attracted to it because they like to see men being physical, in danger and winning or losing.

that's why there are so few to admire you guys at your basket weaving classes.

Except for Prospector.

gg


----------



## bunyip (15 March 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You basket weavers need to harden up.
> 
> Rugby League is a dangerous, full on sport. Many of the women and girls who follow it are attracted to it because they like to see men being physical, in danger and winning or losing.
> 
> ...




I'm no basket weaver. I played both rugby league and rugby union, always played a hard, physical game, tackled ferociously, but always played clean. I wasn't one of the cowards who would elbow a bloke in the face while half a dozen of my mates were helping me to pull him down. I was never so gutless as to attack someone's head when he had both hands on the ball and couldn't defend himself. I tackled around the legs - none of this poofy _'grab 'em around the chest and get pushed off' _ stuff that the coaches teach them these days.

When I wasn't playing league or union I was competing in martial arts competitions. 
These cowardly bastards who indulge in foul play on the football field, they wouldn't have what it takes to climb into a ring or walk out on to a judo or karate floor and face a bloke who's in a position to hit back.

After the game we headed to the pub for an ale or three, did our best to charm on to any females in the vicinity, but we never lowered ourselves to sexually assaulting any of them. We were men, and proud of it, not animals or cowards. We had self respect. Some of these rugby league morons have none.


----------



## bunyip (15 March 2009)

Calliope said:


> Quite often it is the players whom the Clubs' publicity machines have have built up as being decent blokes, visiting sick children in hospitals, featuring in commercials, etc, are the ones who let us down the most. Last year some of the Brisbane Broncos' most "respected" players were involved in nasty incidents inside and outside of nightspots
> 
> One gang of three performed disgusting acts on a woman in a toilet which they captured on film. The woman's complaints weren't taken seriously by the police. The Broncos can do no wrong in Brisbane. The police minister made excuses for these louts while the police were supposed to be investigating the incident.
> 
> Even if they did not technically break the law, their disgusting behaviour should  have seen them kicked out. Neither their club nor the NRL took any action.




My thoughts exactly. As I said in an earlier post, there are just too many idiots and incompetents at the helm of rugby league.
Even the best players like Darren Lockyer or whoever should be chucked out of the game permanently if they can't behave to a decent standard both on and off the field. 
They're not indispensable.....there are many young players coming up through the ranks who are almost as good as the top players, and only need a chance at the top level to lift their game another 10 or 15% to the elite standard.


----------



## bunyip (15 March 2009)

I was watching the 5 o'clock news just now. The sports segment comes on, they show the highlights of todays NRL games. Not surprisingly, another brawl. One bloke punches an opponent in the face, next thing there's six or eight blokes all swinging punches at each other.
Pathetic. And the rugby league code wonders why it's losing ground to other football codes! 
These thugs need to wake up to themselves. The clubs who employ them need to wake up to themselves. The fans who think there's nothing wrong with this sort of behaviour, including one or two on this thread, need to wake up to themselves.
The people at the helm of rugby league need to wake up to themselves and start imposing penalties that are sufficiently severe to curb this sort of behaviour.

The law needs to get involved. You find yourself in court quick and lively on a charge of assault if you punch someone in the face as they're walking down the street. So why then are rugby league players allowed to get away with it on the football field without having to face court for their actions? Why should a football field be a place where violent assault is legalised? Why should football players not be subject to the same laws as anyone else?  Are tennis players allowed to violently assault their opponents? Golfers? Swimmers? Of course not. 
And why do some idiots seem to think it's quite OK and doesn't constitute a serious problem?


----------



## metric (15 March 2009)

bunyip said:


> I was watching the 5 o'clock news just now. The sports segment comes on, they show the highlights of todays NRL games. Not surprisingly, another brawl. One bloke punches an opponent in the face, next thing there's six or eight blokes all swinging punches at each other.
> 
> And why do some idiots seem to think it's quite OK and doesn't constitute a serious problem?




its about time......

BRING BACK THE BIFF!!!


----------



## Macquack (15 March 2009)

metric said:


> its about time......
> 
> BRING BACK THE BIFF!!!




I agree, it adds a bit of theatre.

Better to have the violence on the field than in the stands.


----------



## Beenjammin (15 March 2009)

bunyip said:


> The law needs to get involved. You find yourself in court quick and lively on a charge of assault if you punch someone in the face as they're walking down the street. So why then are rugby league players allowed to get away with it on the football field without having to face court for their actions? Why should a football field be a place where violent assault is legalised? Why should football players not be subject to the same laws as anyone else?  Are tennis players allowed to violently assault their opponents? Golfers? Swimmers? Of course not.




You obviously haven't played the front 9 at Moore Park........

I hear you, but keep in mind televised Rugby League is a full contact sport played by hyper-fit professional athletes and getting a solid thump is part of the game (ever been at the bottom of a rugby maul?). Last time I looked its also illegal to dump-tackle innocent pedestrians (at least outside of Lakemba) but a vital part of a game of League. While I completely agree the behaviour you are referring to is clearly unacceptable and needs to be punished, I also feel that getting the law involved risks opening up a minefield of post match legal BS that will stuff the game up worse than Mr Murdochs Superleague fiasco, and potentially open the legal system to be treated as a media circus fo the benefit of player managers.

The media used to have an understanding with the League not to televise those incidents so as not to set a bad example to kids (and more impressionable "adults"). The players and clubs do get hefty suspensions and fines. Sadly, you cant hope to stop bad behaviour, but you can minimise its impact.


----------



## GumbyLearner (22 March 2009)

Jeff Kennett compares League players and AFL.
Claims AFL players are more disciplined. 

http://www.abc.net.au/sport/offsiders/content/2007/2522889.htm

JACQUELIN MAGNAY, SYDNEY MORNING HERALD: Are you saying Jeff that AFL players are better behaved than rugby league players?

JEFF KENNETT: I don't think there is any doubt about that. I mean, you can put it in any capsule you like but I think that the league in Sydney had its season launch a couple of weeks ago. That turned into a terrifying night of alcoholism and activity, etc. We had our launch last week. It was a very good launch. Very professional. People knew what they were there for and people then returned to their homes or whatever.

A few names that come to mind in the AFL.

1. The numerous Tigers and Pies caught on the sauce during TAC sponsorship of their respective clubs. 

2. The 'clean' Ben Cousins now at Richmond.

3. Supression of names by the AFL of players on performance enhancing substances.

4. Alan Didak and his biker buddies.

5. The misadventures of Brendan Fevola.


----------



## Prospector (22 March 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Jeff Kennett compares League players and AFL.
> Claims AFL players are more disciplined. .




I think that you will find individuals within the AFL have problem behaviours; but that isnt part of the actual club culture and if it does occur, players are dealt with swiftly.   Whereas with Rugby league, it is part of the culture of the club, viz the recent penalty handed out to Manly, because they held a full on beer fest just a couple of days before the opening round.  In AFL it is more likely to be a family day sausage sizzle.  Maybe it is because the Rugby League is interchangable with the income from League Clubs, whereas AFL has never had the same associations with alcohol venues and gambling in order to fund itself.


----------



## Calliope (25 March 2009)

In a previous post I referred to the disgusting behaviour of some Broncos with a woman  in a Brisbane nightspot last year.

Shane Webcke is one of the genuinely acceptable role models in the game. 

The fact that the crowd could cheer these nasty louts tells it's own story 

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6547449,00.jpg


----------



## darnsmall (25 March 2009)

maybe they all need babysitters to tuck them into bed at night


----------



## Prospector (6 April 2009)

Just shows the difference between AFL and Rugby.  An Adelaide player has been arrested for assaulting his girlfriend on Sunday morning, and has been banned indefinately by his club.  He was Adelaide's Best Player last year and had been picked in the all Australian team, he also has to do 50 hours of community service in a Womens shelter, and $5000 fine.  And he hasnt even been to court yet!

What a fantastic message.  Pity about Rugby.


----------



## nomore4s (6 April 2009)

I wondered how Adelaide would deal with him. I'm pretty sure they are only allowed to fine him a maximum of $5,000 and they would have probably fined him more if they could have.


----------



## Prospector (6 April 2009)

I think the powers in Adelaide are really angry about his behaviour.  Craigy would be disgusted at the fact he hit his girlfriend.


----------



## Calliope (7 April 2009)

Thaiday and Hunt, two of the Bronco's players involved in last years disgraceful conduct in a nightclub toilet, apparently had their feelings hurt by Shane Webcke's criticism of them in his book.

http://www.news.com.au/common/imagedata/0,,6567160,00.jpg


----------



## Prospector (7 April 2009)

metric said:


> prospector....IF it is proven, i doubt very much he will go to jail.
> 
> perhaps you have more detail?
> there are no suggestions anyones clothes were removed?
> ...




Well, this may throw more light on his 'naughty boy' behaviour!  Although of course not proven yet.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25302145-29277,00.html
_The 24-year-old fullback is charged with sexual intercourse without consent and assault with an act of indecency on a 17-year-old girl about 8pm (AEDT) on March 6 at North Manly. _ 

Rape, not a kiss and cuddle or a quick grope in the dark!


----------



## GumbyLearner (9 April 2009)

So some posters think it's a one football code problem. Namely NRL.

What about this story even though it doesn't involve drunken behaviour or violent acts committed on women.  Yeah right!

It is still a narrative about violence against women for that matter according to former player/indie pollie Phil Cleary.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/09/2539600.htm?section=justin

*Chook video duo may be rested: Laidley*

North Melbourne coach Dean Laidley says the two senior AFL players at the centre of the chicken sex video scandal may be rested from this weekend's match against Hawthorn.

Midfielder Adam Simpson and ruckman Daniel Pratt appeared on The Footy Show on Channel Nine last night to confess to being part of a group of eight players who made an offensive video that was uploaded onto the internet.

Certainly a sick violent narrative involving throwing a chicken carcass against a wall and running it over like roadkill.

Yeah ladies its just an NRL problem.

The video was made my two 'shinboners' named Pratt and Simpson.

I much prefer this narrative at least it's funny! And doesn't involve throwing chickens against walls and running them over.

Sick indeed!


----------



## nomore4s (9 April 2009)

Blown out of proportion imo, while it is somewhat distasteful and shouldn't have been made public, it is only a bit of fun by young men with too much time on their hands.

Not even close to comparable with the Stewart incident.

As for the 2 codes, who cares imo it's more a society problem it doesn't matter what code of football they play.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (9 April 2009)

nomore4s said:


> As for the 2 codes, who cares imo it's more a society problem it doesn't matter what code of football they play.




dont see the socceroos behaving like that.


----------



## GumbyLearner (9 April 2009)

I have to disagree with you nomore4s.

Prospector claimed in an earlier post that unlike NRL there were not the "culture" problems in the AFL.

A few weeks earlier I posted a story about Wayne Carey and his decision to reform in light of his history of domestic violence. For this, Prospector rightly pointed out that he had glassed a lady and what an idiotic act it was.
Which of course was posted in the newspaper link that I attached to my post.

Now, two weeks later we hear of the North Melbourne Footy Club creating a video and uploading it on the net. This is a culture problem.  

You can say all you like about the NRL, but AFL clubs have their share of violent drunken idiotic bastards who come home and lay into their wives and kids too! There is no room to delineate between the two.

I agree with you nomore4s, it is a society problem regardless of code.
But it is also a myth to think otherwise.


----------



## nomore4s (9 April 2009)

Stormin_Norman said:


> dont see the socceroos behaving like that.




Yeah you're right soccer never has any issues with poor behaviour


----------



## GumbyLearner (9 April 2009)

Stormin_Norman said:


> dont see the socceroos behaving like that.




Exactly or Rugby Union they all went to GPS schools, therefore they are all intellectually immune to acts of violence toward women. Bull****! Yet another myth!


----------



## nomore4s (9 April 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Prospector claimed in an earlier post that unlike NRL there were not the "culture" problems in the AFL.




I have played footy with/against current and ex AFL players and let me tell you AFL has it's fair share of idiots in its ranks and it is naive to think otherwise. Some of the stories I've heard are pretty bad.

What I was refering to was this latest incident with the North players, pretty harmless imo.


----------



## GumbyLearner (9 April 2009)

nomore4s said:


> I have played footy with/against current and ex AFL players and let me tell you AFL has it's fair share of idiots in its ranks and it is naive to think otherwise. Some of the stories I've heard are pretty bad.
> 
> What I was refering to was this latest incident with the North players, pretty harmless imo.




I played footy for 10 years as a kid. From midgets onwards... I know all about being on the end of it.

If it was such a trivial issue then the club wouldn't have donated $10,000 to a Domestic Violence charity would they?

Certainly trivial in the minds of the creators.


----------



## Prospector (9 April 2009)

Um, the chicken consented!  And the rooster did wear a condom!

Actually, the rooster and chicken thing isn't actually offensive as I dont equate myself to a dead chook!  It is probably more offensive to males than females.

Sure, it was a dumb thing to do.  Unfortunately footy players get paid too much money for playing football, and not working for their salary in the real world, and so they never grow up and lost touch with what society deems to be appropriate.

The difference with all this is that the AFL clubs reacted; in Rugby, the players almost get congratulated for it.


----------



## GumbyLearner (9 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> Um, the chicken consented!  And the rooster did wear a condom!
> 
> Actually, the rooster and chicken thing isn't actually offensive as I dont equate myself to a dead chook!  It is probably more offensive to males than females.
> 
> ...




That's an interesting post in light of there being no 'actual culture problem' in AFL clubs. As you posted 2 weeks earlier. Carey glassed woman -> NM Idiot. I agree. 

2 weeks later Chicken Video-> NMFC. Not offensive to women but $10K to Domestic Violence charity. 

I'm confused about your line of reasoning there Prospector.

What are you saying -> *same club different bucket*?

or *same game different bucket*?


----------



## spooly74 (9 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> The difference with all this is that the AFL clubs reacted; in Rugby, the players almost get congratulated for it.




What suspension did Bock end up with for slapping his Mrs around?


----------



## nomore4s (9 April 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> If it was such a trivial issue then the club wouldn't have donated $10,000 to a Domestic Violence charity would they?
> 
> Certainly trivial in the minds of the creators.




We will have to disagree here, imo it is political correctness gone too far. Of course money was going to get donated to charity as it is all about image and perception. 
It was a stupid thing to do and letting it get posted on the net even dumber but at the end of the day it was harmless.



Prospector said:


> The difference with all this is that the AFL clubs reacted; in Rugby, the players almost get congratulated for it.




I also agree with this, the AFL clubs certainly appear to be more proactive and professional. Also I don't think too many clubs would have looked to kindly on one of its star players being so drunk he couldn't remember anything a week before the first game of the season.


----------



## Prospector (9 April 2009)

The difference being in that no-one can control individuals.  People will always do stupid things and have lapses of judgement.  But it is what happens before and after the event which determines whether the problems are entrenched within the culture of the club (and therefore encouraged/supported by the club management) or whether they are merely the actions of a stupid person.

For instance, there is no AFL club that would hold a booze filled players even just prior to the opening of a new season, or even during it.  Rugby?  Well, they do.

Carey is an individual who screwed up badly, but he was booted from the team by management and despised by his team mates.

Bock - he too screwed up badly and his career has now been put on hold - no excuses, nada! 

The North Melbourne thing - again two people did a stupid thing and the club has acted.  I still am not offended by it, but obviously the club was and chose to make the donation.


----------



## Calliope (9 May 2009)

How come I'm not surprised by this?



> RESEARCH shows footy stars are more likely to have alcohol problems, be more verbally aggressive and more sexually promiscuous than criminals.




http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,,25452035-911,00.html

They are probably dumber too.


----------



## Largesse (9 May 2009)

get over it.


----------



## Prospector (9 May 2009)

I was poo-poohing this research when told about it today, then had a look at the article and the authors.

By the way, it is AFL players not for Rugby ones!

I studied Psych at Uni with Jack, went to his wedding and he went on to become a Chief Psychologist in Adelaide's Mental Health Service, particularly within Nash House, which houses the criminally insane, have met Jeff Bond and he and Sandy have both worked under hubby in elite sporting circles. They probably know their stuff!


----------



## moXJO (9 May 2009)

While I am no big league supporter, I think both men and women seem to have lost all sense of decency when on the grog. While men cop a fair whack of the stick of blame (and with good reason) Women’s drinking problems or violence problems are largely ignored. And I have seen a lot these last few years. 
With the feminization of men in progress, certain women seem to be developing all the males’ bad characteristics and also flaunting it.


----------



## Calliope (9 May 2009)

Largesse said:


> get over it.




Of course. Let's turn a blind eye to it. It's just boys having fun.

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews/im-not-dirty-johns-woman/2009/05/08/1241727609976.html


----------



## Largesse (9 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Of course. Let's turn a blind eye to it. It's just boys having fun.
> 
> http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews/im-not-dirty-johns-woman/2009/05/08/1241727609976.html




............ you are judging the league players but not the woman who consented to gangbanging five rugby players?

ok...................................


----------



## Duckman#72 (9 May 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> This is a culture problem.
> 
> You can say all you like about the NRL, but AFL clubs have their share of violent drunken idiotic bastards who come home and lay into their wives and kids too! There is no room to delineate between the two.
> 
> ...




Gumby, I don't know of your background but you have to be kidding yourself.

When you look at the AFL and see the leadership and character of the very top superstars such as James Hird, Matthew Lloyd, Nathan Buckley, Chris Judd, Nick Reiwoldt, Matthew Pavlich - I don't see their peers in the NRL. Someone such as Matthew Johns in a "position of leadership" at Cronulla, shouldn't have been engaging in a "team bonding session" in Christchurch.

I put some of the difference between the codes to the involvement of women. The AFL has a huge female audience and also involvement at grass roots level. It has impacted on AFL being less of a "boys club".  

I can remember when Channel 9 and the NRL trialled broadcasting the team song being sung by the victorious team (like the AFL).......only one problem, the songs were a disgraceful mix of blue language and bawdy drinking tunes with some sexist remarks thrown in. Imagine how hard it is going to be for David Gallop to turn around the NRL image when it is built on "cornerstones" such as these. 

Both code have got their "dickheads".....it is just a representation of the general society - however, in general, the culture of the AFL is considerably different than that of Rugby League.


----------



## Duckman#72 (9 May 2009)

Largesse said:


> get over it.




Do you have any empathy for the girl at all? Or do you see this as simply an annoying blip on the radar that doesn't deserve any media coverage. 

If no one knows about it - then it didn't happen - right?

I agree that the timing is very questionable BUT don't defend the players. It was almost vomitious the other night on the Footy Show watching all the "mates" basically dry humping Matty Johns for the anguish and hurt he is now going through. Give me a break - tell me who was in the position of power? The Cronulla football team or a 19 yr old female employee of a motel? 

I feel for the families of the players.......but it's a pity the players didn't think more about their families before their actions.

Duckman


----------



## Wysiwyg (9 May 2009)

moXJO said:


> While I am no big league supporter, I think both men and women seem to have lost all sense of decency when on the grog.




The thrill of the chase. Inhibitions subside. The chicks love it. It`s exciting.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Gumby, I don't know of your background but you have to be kidding yourself.
> 
> When you look at the AFL and see the leadership and character of the very top superstars such as James Hird, Matthew Lloyd, Nathan Buckley, Chris Judd, Nick Reiwoldt, Matthew Pavlich - I don't see their peers in the NRL. Someone such as Matthew Johns in a "position of leadership" at Cronulla, shouldn't have been engaging in a "team bonding session" in Christchurch.
> 
> ...




Its basically a NRL working class versus an AFL middle class beatup.

Johns is a disgrace.

So are many of the AFL guys.

The NRL guys are working class, not as bright and don't have the assets to defend themselves as well as the AFL do.

gg


----------



## Calliope (9 May 2009)

Largesse said:


> ............ you are judging the league players but not the woman who consented to gangbanging five rugby players?
> 
> ok...................................




Blackening the character of the victim is the time honoured defence for sexual predators.


----------



## chrislp (10 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Blackening the character of the victim is the time honoured defence for sexual predators.




What victim & what predators?

The police have investigated & they have shut the case. 

The girl got what she want 7 years ago & now she is making money off it. 

Good for her & bad for the footy players, they are the ones who are getting the **** end of the stick.


----------



## Calliope (10 May 2009)

chrislp said:


> What victim & what predators?
> 
> The police have investigated & they have shut the case.
> 
> ...




This post gives a good insight into *your* character and ethical standards.


----------



## gooner (10 May 2009)

chrislp said:


> What victim & what predators?
> 
> The police have investigated & they have shut the case.
> 
> ...




There is a huge difference between the police not having enough evidence to press charges and the men being innocent. Who knows what happened except those involved? The woman obviously thought it was non-consensual as she went to the police. I did not see the 4 corners story so can only comment on what is on this thread. Perhaps she wanted consensual sex with one of the players who bought his mates in?

Women have a right to say no at any time. The fact that a woman goes to a hotel room with a player never means "she is asking for it". Anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete neanderthal.


----------



## Prospector (10 May 2009)

gooner said:


> There is a huge difference between the police not having enough evidence to press charges and the men being innocent. .




Yeah, totally agree with that point.  Last week a Magistrate was released from paedophilia charges in SA - not because he was found innocent but because the police could not submit the evidence that was required to prosecute the case.  His lawyer, a well known criminal lawyer, and who should have and did know better, said that proved his client was innocent.


----------



## Calliope (10 May 2009)

gooner said:


> Women have a right to say no at any time. The fact that a woman goes to a hotel room with a player never means "she is asking for it". Anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete neanderthal.




gooner

It is hard to believe that at some stage during her ordeal that the Christchurch girl did not tell these bullies to stop. If she did it was technically rape.

The girl's story and the NRL's attitude to players' bad behaviour is covered on ABC Four Corners tomorrow night under a segment titled "The Code of Silence"


----------



## awg (10 May 2009)

all this talk of getting pissed and gangbanging sluts will probably encourage young men to have increased interest in the game


----------



## Calliope (10 May 2009)

awg said:


> all this talk of getting pissed and gangbanging sluts will probably encourage young men to have increased interest in the game




No doubt it will, in Newcastle.


----------



## awg (10 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> No doubt it will, in Newcastle.




i wasnt even thinking i share the hometown of the current media spotlight!

The Knights, and especially the Johns boys were and are protected species up here, the witnessed, unpublished stories of their antics would be a real eye opener.

Havnt heard any recent reports, Brian Smith must run a tighter regime


----------



## chrislp (10 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> This post gives a good insight into *your* character and ethical standards.




No need to get personal. I am not always right & not everybody see's everything the same way. Gooner's post helps me see things in a different way & open's more discussion.    

Personally I find the situation & many like these disgusting.  I question why it took 7 years for it to come out & how these girls find themselves in this & similar situations.


----------



## Julia (10 May 2009)

chrislp said:


> I question why it took 7 years for it to come out & how these girls find themselves in this & similar situations.



This seems a reasonable point.

The whole "was it consensual" consideration is difficult, isn't it?

How does anyone know that (nothing to do with the discussion above, but just a random hypothetical) if Mary-Lou who has been enjoying the company of a bunch of players in a pub, getting progressively more drunk during this time, eventually agrees to go back to the player's hotel room where she engages willingly in sex.

Then next day perhaps she rather regrets having done this, for whatever reason, and decides to accuse the bloke of rape.  Lodges complaint accordingly.

How is it determined what is actually the truth?  Aren't the blokes in this situation as vulnerable as the women, in a completely different sense?


----------



## Prospector (10 May 2009)

Julia said:


> How is it determined what is actually the truth?  Aren't the blokes in this situation as vulnerable as the women, in a completely different sense?




This is such an important issue.  Any person can be accused of conducting any crime if the circumstances permit just the possibility of such a crime.  For professional people (Doctors, Lawyers, physios, masseuse, psychologists) it is all about risk management but sometimes you just cant totally prove who is right, who is wrong.


----------



## Largesse (10 May 2009)

Julia said:


> This seems a reasonable point.
> 
> The whole "was it consensual" consideration is difficult, isn't it?
> 
> ...




this was my first thought when this whole thing blew up...


----------



## metric (10 May 2009)

all you wowsers that are slandering matt johns, better not listen to music. because there isnt a musician that hasnt been on a drug binge or had the sort of sex that a wowser is afraid of......

so wowsers....dont wear fashion labels because their designers are probably gay, dont listen to music as they are sexually compromised.

please pass a law to hang wowsers....?!


----------



## Calliope (10 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Aren't the blokes in this situation as vulnerable as the women, in a completely different sense?




Yes. Seven hulking footballers (at least) treating a 19 year old girl like a play toy. Very vulnerable indeed to getting charged with rape, so we must admire their guts for taking it on.

And poor old slandered Matthew Johns has apologised to his family, and Fatty Vautin has given him a pat on the back.

It's only the nasty "wowsers'" who think his behaviour was wrong.


----------



## gooner (10 May 2009)

metric said:


> all you wowsers that are slandering matt johns, better not listen to music. because there isnt a musician that hasnt been on a drug binge or had the sort of sex that a wowser is afraid of......
> 
> so wowsers....dont wear fashion labels because their designers are probably gay, dont listen to music as they are sexually compromised.
> 
> please pass a law to hang wowsers....?!




metric

Personally, I couldn't care less what 2 or more consenting adults do in their own bedrooms. I think it is an important freedom that Western countries have that many other countries do not have. 

However, the important word is "consenting". If the woman did not consent, that is rape. And being disgusted by rape does not make you a wowser, it makes you a normal human being.


----------



## Stan 101 (10 May 2009)

I Julia made some good points on this matter. Without condoning any alleged incidents one needs to wonder why a drunk young girl would willingly accompany a drunk footballers back to a motel room. The chance being greeted to only tea and bisuits was low to say the least.

It is one thing to say when a woman says no it means no, but it needs to be kept in context here. What was the woman thinking? What good could possibly come from her going to a room with these men? Where were her friends to offer judgement if she was too drunk?
 If she was drunk why did she allow herself to get in the intoxicated state and choose a poor choice in the first place? When sober she should have had a plan if she did drink too much.

Leaving your kids in the back yard with a savage rottweiller and then damning that same dog to death after it attacks those children is little comfort. The damage is done.

These footballers are what they are. One has admitted to taking part in group sex and cheating on his partner. It's not right but it a reality. This stuff goes on.

As for why the woman is now speaking to the media? Maybe it's her way to get over the issue. She may feel she needs to take this path to come to terms with it. Why anyone would feel the need to air their dirty laundry in the media lime light is beyond me, but it's her choice. If she had been more responsible and made better choice nearly a decade ago, she probably wouldn't need to embarrass herself and all alround her now.

cheers,


----------



## dbcok (10 May 2009)

When I was younger there were always those trying to get others involved in gang-bang behaviour.I surmised that this was to share the culpablility.
The morality and hygene consequences involved were always too much for me.
In the end,one has to have some standards.


----------



## Calliope (10 May 2009)

Stan 101;433069

As for why the woman is now speaking to the media? Maybe it's her way to get over the issue. She may feel she needs to take this path to come to terms with it. Why anyone would feel the need to air their dirty laundry in the media lime light is beyond me said:
			
		

> We will find out tomorrow night why the woman came forward. Perhaps Four Corners tracked her down for the story. It is strange how you think it is* her *dirty laundry. *If she had only been more responsible* you say.
> 
> In spite of what all you apologists say to defend the footballers, this defenceless vulnerable girl was the victim of the sexual depredations of a pack of hooligans.
> 
> One enlightened supporter of pack sexual thuggery thinks that people who can't accept this as normal footy culture are wowsers and should be hanged.


----------



## Stan 101 (10 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> It is strange how you think it is* her *dirty laundry. *If she had only been more responsible* you say.




Well it's certainly not mine. As mentioned in the opening stanza I noted I do not condone the footballers whatsoever. If she has issues with this she should be seeking good legal council.

Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't know where they have been.


Let me put it this way, If you (and you may) had (have) a duaghter, would you be happy for her to go to the room of a footballer after they had both been drinking? Please answer honestly.



Cheers,


----------



## Calliope (10 May 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> Please don't put words in my mouth. I don't know where they have been.



I put no words in your mouth,. That is your imagination. But you did try to blacken the character of the girl, and not the men. 


> Let me put it this way, If you (and you may) had (have) a *duaghter*, would you be happy for her to go to the room of a footballer after they had both been drinking? Please answer honestly.



Of course not. And what's the relevance of a silly question like that?


----------



## Duckman#72 (10 May 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> Leaving your kids in the back yard with a savage rottweiller and then damning that same dog to death after it attacks those children is little comfort. The damage is done.




I don't understand this?

So NRL players have no more control of their urges and actions than a rabid animal? They have as much sense of right and wrong, moral and immoral as a savage dog?  

Don't be too hard on the woman turning up after 7 years. Hers is only one of a number on tomorrow nights story. As it turns out - the reason the woman has remained anonymous is due to the fact that she has moved on with her life and has remarried. She didn't approach the media, she was approached by 4 Corners, doing a story on poor behaviour, and more importantly, the lack of accountability from those in power. 

Apparently the police interviewed 40 people from the Cronulla sharks over the incident, yet the Cronulla club and the NRL did not even feel it necessary to counsel and provide the players with any programs. This is basis of the episode, how the culture of the NRL has been turning a blind eye to these incidents for years. Like a number of forum members here - what goes on tour, stays on tour. 

Duckman


----------



## Stan 101 (10 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Of course not. And what's the relevance of a silly question like that?




Firstly, thank you for highlighting my typo. It is poor form on my part.

It has great relevance. A girl willingly went to a motel room with a footballer. If you can't see that, I'll post no more on this issue in regard to your posts.


Cheers,


----------



## Julia (10 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Yes. Seven hulking footballers (at least) treating a 19 year old girl like a play toy. Very vulnerable indeed to getting charged with rape, so we must admire their guts for taking it on.
> 
> And poor old slandered Matthew Johns has apologised to his family, and Fatty Vautin has given him a pat on the back.
> 
> It's only the nasty "wowsers'" who think his behaviour was wrong.



Calliope, I very specifically said that my hypothetical example was NOT referring to the specific case under discussion.
That hypothetical did not discuss any woman having sex with seven men.

So I think your sarcastic tone is completely unwarranted.

My previous remarks stand:   Nothing to do with footballers, but if any woman willingly engages in sex with any bloke, what is to stop her the following day (or anytime thereafter)  having a change of heart and yelling Rape.   

Or do you think such behaviour is never likely to happen??

If so, you must have an intensely idealised view of women.


----------



## Julia (10 May 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> A girl willingly went to a motel room with a footballer.






Calliope said:


> In spite of what all you apologists say to defend the footballers, this defenceless vulnerable girl was the victim of the sexual depredations of a pack of hooligans.



I don't think anyone is defending any footballers.   
"A defenceless, vulnerable girl"???   Really?  Anyone would think she was on her way home from Sunday School and was attacked out of the blue.
As Stan 101 has pointed out, she willingly accompanied a bloke to his motel room.  I doubt she imagined they were going there to read the Bible.




> One enlightened supporter of pack sexual thuggery thinks that people who can't accept this as normal footy culture are wowsers and should be hanged.



Could you provide a link to this statement.  I haven't read anything that makes any such statement.

Personally, I find the culture of worship of footballers baffling.  They largely appear to be poorly educated idiots with a specific skill regarding a particular sport.  Why this should identify them as people destined to be role models is beyond me, and the behaviour of many of them is testament to their complete incapacity in this regard.

But in the interests of rational and equitable discussion, I just can't see that any woman who has no previously established friendship with said footy stars, should be labelled an 'innocent victim' if she  gets drunk with said footy heroes, and  accepts their invitation to adjourn to motel room.


----------



## gooner (10 May 2009)

Julia said:


> I don't think anyone is defending any footballers.
> "A defenceless, vulnerable girl"???   Really?  Anyone would think she was on her way home from Sunday School and was attacked out of the blue.
> As Stan 101 has pointed out, she willingly accompanied a bloke to his motel room.  I doubt she imagined they were going there to read the Bible.
> 
> But in the interests of rational and equitable discussion, I just can't see that any woman who has no previously established friendship with said footy stars, should be labelled an 'innocent victim' if she  gets drunk with said footy heroes, and  accepts their invitation to adjourn to motel room.




Julia

In my books if she was raped she is an innocent victim - her behaviour has nothing to do with it.

Is a six year old girl sleeping in her bed an innocent victim

Is a 18 year old girl walking home an innocent victim?

Is a 18 year old girl wearing a miniskirt in a pub having a few beers an innocent victim?

Is an 18 year old girl wearing a miniskirt who goes back to a guy's house for a coffee an innocent victim (coffee sometimes does mean just that)

Where do you draw the line? In my view all victims are innocent, it is the criminals who are guilty


----------



## Julia (10 May 2009)

gooner said:


> Julia
> 
> In my books if she was raped she is an innocent victim - her behaviour has nothing to do with it.
> 
> ...



You are assuming she is a victim.
You are assuming she was raped.

I am making neither assumption.


----------



## Calliope (10 May 2009)

Julia said:


> I don't think anyone is defending any footballers.
> "A defenceless, vulnerable girl"???   Really?  Anyone would think she was on her way home from Sunday School and was attacked out of the blue.
> As Stan 101 has pointed out, she willingly accompanied a bloke to his motel room.  I doubt she imagined they were going there to read the Bible.




Who's being sarcastic now? And I don't think that she went to his room in the expectations that she would suffer degradations at the hands of his mates. You may not be defending these knuckledragers, but you implied in an earlier post that they were as vulnerable as the victim. How come?



> Could you provide a link to this statement.  I haven't read anything that makes any such statement.




Sure. Metric's post #131 on this thread.

Furthermore I don't think my refusal to join the mob in trying to blacken the character of the victim means I have an "intensely idealistic" view of women. I have never been a part of the nightclub culture, so my views are probably a bit old fashioned.


----------



## Stan 101 (10 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Julia said:
> 
> 
> > And I don't think that she went to his room in the expectations that she would suffer degradations at the hands of his mates.
> ...


----------



## gooner (11 May 2009)

Julia said:


> I don't think anyone is defending any footballers.
> "A defenceless, vulnerable girl"???   Really?  Anyone would think she was on her way home from Sunday School and was attacked out of the blue.
> As Stan 101 has pointed out, she willingly accompanied a bloke to his motel room.  I doubt she imagined they were going there to read the Bible.
> 
> But in the interests of rational and equitable discussion, I just can't see that any woman who has no previously established friendship with said footy stars, should be labelled an 'innocent victim' if she  gets drunk with said footy heroes, and  accepts their invitation to adjourn to motel room.






Julia said:


> You are assuming she is a victim.
> You are assuming she was raped.
> 
> I am making neither assumption.



Julia, I was responding to your post rather than making assumptions. Your statement was that any woman is not an innocent victim if she get drunk with footballers and goes to their hotel room. If she is not innocent, she must therefore be guilty. So it must be her fault. 

If the sex was consensual then she is not a victim. If the sec was non-consensual, she is a victim. However, your statement made to reference to consent of non-consent, it just stated that the woman was not an innocent victim.  You are clearly applying a level of guilt because she had some drinks and went to the motel room. In my eyes, this may be considered risky, but it is never guilty - the man who forces the rape is the guilty party.

BTW, despite the nic, I am assuming you are a man, as my wife believes no woman would make the comments you have made.


----------



## Calliope (11 May 2009)

Gooner, 

While tonight's program will probably fail to change the minds of those posters who think the women deserved everything they got, I think it will at least demonstrate their courage in coming forward in contrast to the cowardly pack mentality of the players.

These players could always depend on the support and cover ups by their clubs and the NRL. These girls had no support.  Their detractors even try to blacken their characters, as an excuse for the players' actions.

It's a case of the powerful against the weak.


----------



## gooner (11 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Gooner,
> 
> While tonight's program will probably fail to change the minds of those posters who think the women deserved everything they got, I think it will at least demonstrate their courage in coming forward in contrast to the cowardly pack mentality of the players.
> 
> ...




Calliope

I agree with your comments. As an example of the offensive reporting - here is Danny Weidler in the Sun-Herald yesterday "Today I'll deal with some aspects of the matter. Johns and a teammate had sex with the woman. When other players entered the room and began to watch what was happening, Johns backed out. The woman requested that Johns have sex with her again. Her request was made in the crudest of terms. When another player said he would, the woman requested that Johns have sex with her again. Her request was made in the crudest of terms. When another player said he would, the woman requested Johns. He declined"

This is reported as fact, however Danny Weidler was not there. Very poor journalism IMHO and an attempt to smear the woman.


----------



## awg (11 May 2009)

most of the comments seem to focus on one incident, for which all and sundry are paying a price for poor judgement on the night.

apart from anything else, the show may make some comment on the rabid efforts of some of the female fans to impress themselves upon their chosen favorites..but i doubt that will be the main focus!

There is at least 2 sides to every story


----------



## Prospector (11 May 2009)

I remember in 'the old days', in Australian Rules football and in cricket, the payments made to players were never enough for them to live on, and so they had to work in another job or build a career in order to make ends meet.

Now we have the professional sportsman, who never experiences the real world.  They are selected straight from school, even from Year 11; paid salaries of at least $70k from the age of 17 and usually much more than this; are lauded and feted in the media as being our heroes, and of course the girls come running.  They have no idea what it means to put in a potentially boring '8 hours work in the office', eat a rushed lunch, then back to work.  They dont have to deal with work relationships in mixed company as they are surrounded by like minded men.  And all they do is either hit a ball with a stick or kick and throw a leather bag full of air around an oval.   How stupid are we!

No wonder they get into trouble.


----------



## Calliope (11 May 2009)

Much has been made of the fact that the NZ police couldn't come up with the evidence to charge any members of the Cronulla club. The police came to Australia and interviewed 40 players and club staff who were in Christchurch that night.

The club knew they were coming and they would have got their stories in agreement down to the last detail. If only one of this forty had said that the girl said *no* or *stop* at any time during her ordeal then several players could have ended up behind bars.

However, club solidarity is such that anyone breaking ranks can count his career as finished.

As for the nastiness in the Sun-Herald, I give more credence to the girl's employer at the time, the motel owner who said that she was the last person he thought would do such a thing.


----------



## Julia (11 May 2009)

Julia said:


> This seems a reasonable point.
> 
> The whole "was it consensual" consideration is difficult, isn't it?
> 
> ...






Calliope said:


> Who's being sarcastic now? And I don't think that she went to his room in the expectations that she would suffer degradations at the hands of his mates. You may not be defending these knuckledragers, but you implied in an earlier post that they were as vulnerable as the victim. How come?
> 
> 
> 
> .






gooner said:


> Julia, I was responding to your post rather than making assumptions. Your statement was that any woman is not an innocent victim if she get drunk with footballers and goes to their hotel room. If she is not innocent, she must therefore be guilty. So it must be her fault.



Oh for heaven's sake, I did not make such a statement.
Calliope and Gooner, just re-read my post above.  I specifically said I was not referring to the incident which had been the subject of this thread.
I haven't read anything about what is alleged to have happened so am not in a position to make any conclusions.

My point was rather a general one and if you can't see what I was saying then there is little point in my further attempting to explain.
Others had no such difficulty.





> If the sex was consensual then she is not a victim. If the sec was non-consensual, she is a victim. However, your statement made to reference to consent of non-consent, it just stated that the woman was not an innocent victim.  You are clearly applying a level of guilt because she had some drinks and went to the motel room. In my eyes, this may be considered risky, but it is never guilty - the man who forces the rape is the guilty party.



The hypothetical example I offered was one of consensual sex, not rape.

The vulnerability I mentioned was that of a man who engages in consensual sex, consensual OK??, then could be vulnerable to a woman at some later stage wishing she had not become thus engaged, and crying rape.  How is the bloke going to defend himself?

Remember, in my example, *she was not raped.*



> BTW, despite the nic, I am assuming you are a man, as my wife believes no woman would make the comments you have made.



I'm less than interested in what your wife thinks, frankly.  I am merely attempting to introduce a note of objectivity into this discussion, something which - apart from a few posters - seems to be somewhat lacking.


----------



## nomore4s (11 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Much has been made of the fact that the NZ police couldn't come up with the evidence to charge any members of the Cronulla club. The police came to Australia and interviewed 40 players and club staff who were in Christchurch that night.
> 
> The club knew they were coming and they would have got their stories in agreement down to the last detail. If only one of this forty had said that the girl said *no* or *stop* at any time during her ordeal then several players could have ended up behind bars.
> 
> ...




I find it somewhat amusing that both yourself and Gooner are carrying on about poor reporting and the clubs covering it up but the fact is neither of you know exactly what happened on the night either but are quite happy to jump on you high horses and condem the footy players purely because they are footy players.
I don't really know what happened on that night and neither do you guys we are all going on second hand reports.

Footy players don't do themselves any favours at times but there are plenty of young & not so young girls that are willing to do things with these footy player especially when under the influence of drugs and alcohol that most people find disgusting, it is unfortunately a fact of life nowadays.


----------



## pointr (11 May 2009)

I find Rugby League a boring spectacle, a recent survey in the Newcastle Herald also suggested this was one reason for falling attendances in Knights matches. The survey also mentioned the off field antics of NRL players as well. Why any business except for perhaps the alcohol industry would want to be associated with the NRL and the behaviour of its players amazes me. If I had the choice of buying from a business that supports professional football or one that doesn't I'd go for the one that doesn't. Repetitive boozy,violent behaviour by some players is the reason why I don't want my money going to them.


----------



## Calliope (11 May 2009)

nomore4s said:


> Footy players don't do themselves any favours at times but there are plenty of young & not so young girls that are willing to do things with these footy player especially when under the influence of drugs and alcohol that most people find disgusting, it is unfortunately a fact of life nowadays.




OK you find my opinions amusing.

But as I have said before, I am not into nightclub culture, so maybe I am behind the times. It is your choice to accept these carryings-on as a "fact of life."
But you will have to excuse me for my intolerance of bad behaviour. I suppose it depends on how you were brought up.


----------



## nomore4s (11 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> OK you find my opinions amusing.
> 
> But as I have said before, I am not into nightclub culture, so maybe I am behind the times. It is your choice to accept these carryings-on as a "fact of life."
> But you will have to excuse me for my intolerance of bad behaviour. I suppose it depends on how you were brought up.




I also haven't been to a nightclub for a number of years.
I accept these carryings-on as a fact of life because they happen - turning a blind eye doesn't stop them from happening.

I also don't particularly like some of the behaviour of most of these footy players and the antics that happen in our nightlife city centres now but turning a blind eye to it and pretending it doesn't happen isn't exactly dealing with reality is it?


----------



## moXJO (11 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> OK you find my opinions amusing.
> 
> But as I have said before, I am not into nightclub culture, so maybe I am behind the times. It is your choice to accept these carryings-on as a "fact of life."
> But you will have to excuse me for my intolerance of bad behaviour. I suppose it depends on how you were brought up.




I have seen some 'to rude to print behavior' resulting from nightclub culture. Also stories from my wife’s sisters friends of various gangbangs when they were 14yr olds (now 18-20). It does go on a lot and mainly alcohol related. With role models like Paris Hilton or Britt spears no wonder


----------



## Julia (11 May 2009)

I'm a little surprised that there are no comments about the 4 Corners programme this evening, given the firm opinions that were expressed prior to it being aired.


----------



## gooner (11 May 2009)

Julia said:


> I'm a little surprised that there are no comments about the 4 Corners programme this evening, given the firm opinions that were expressed prior to it being aired.




The wife was watching something else. Was it any good?


----------



## Calliope (11 May 2009)

Julia said:


> I'm a little surprised that there are no comments about the 4 Corners programme this evening, given the firm opinions that were expressed prior to it being aired.




I have nothing to add. The program validates the views I have already expressed, i.e. compassion for the victims and disgust with the players.


----------



## Prospector (12 May 2009)

I have recorded but not watched it yet. Have heard some clips on the radio. Hearing the victim speak I can not even imagine the morals of anyone, consenting or otherwise who could think that this was in any way something that was even remotely ok. How could you live with a man who participated or watched it?

I even feel smuttily voyeuristic for even thinking of watching it.


----------



## awg (12 May 2009)

I watched it. IMO:

* the testimony of the girls was devastating

*Matthew Johns immediate career is mortally damaged

* the program was portrayed in a way that seemed to me, to reflect a strongly feminist ideology.

* Knights got a puzzling treatment

* the person i feel most sorry for is Mrs Johns, dunno why


----------



## cuttlefish (12 May 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> Firstly, thank you for highlighting my typo. It is poor form on my part.
> 
> It has great relevance. A girl willingly went to a motel room with a footballer. If you can't see that, I'll post no more on this issue in regard to your posts.
> 
> ...




At nineteen a lot of young women are still very naive - even if they think they are otherwise.    Going back to a hotel room with one or two football players - possibly with the anticipation that she may end up having sex with one or both of them - does not mean she's consented to a room full of uninvited onlookers/participants and hours of degrading treatment.   

Receiving this outcome when another 'risque' outcome was possibly on her mind would create a lot of confusion for a young woman about her own responsibility for the situation - but going to a room with the possible intent to have sex with one or two guys does not automatically mean consenting sex to anyone thats in the room that feels like it.

The footy show apology looks pretty pathetic after the airing of the episode - and Johns - 30 years old and married at the time - can hardly use to excuse that he was too young and stupid to know he was misusing a naive 19 year old in this way. But I also think these players (and a lot of young blokes regardless of whether they play football or not) genuinely don't realise the harm and trauma that some situations and behaviours can cause to the women concerned and the lasting effects it can have on them.

I felt the show presented a reasonably balanced view - you do come away with the viewpoint that clubs like Newcastle are genuinely trying to make changes, and that the NRL in general does view the situation seriously and introducing measures to try to adjust players behaviours and attitudes.  But there's a long road ahead to change the culture that exists and some of the clubs look like they're going to be a lot slower to get the message.


----------



## Julia (12 May 2009)

gooner said:


> The wife was watching something else. Was it any good?




It was extremely ugly.   I don't know how any of those footballers can ever show their faces again.

And , as awg mentioned, how must their wives feel?

Typically of 4 Corners, it was a well made programme.   Suggest anyone with teenage children should have them watch it, both girls and boys.


----------



## Calliope (12 May 2009)

awg said:


> I watched it. IMO:
> 
> * the testimony of the girls was devastating
> 
> ...




The reason for the Knights exposure was that they were the only club that cooperated in the making of the documentary. Others refused.

However I'm afraid the Knights lead with their chin. One item that has received media coverage this morning is the statement by one young player that it would be a nice touch after group sex, if instead of walking away they should* get the victim a taxi home.*

They still don't get it.

The compassionate treatment the girl got from the Christchurch police is a credit to them.  Where was the sisterhood when she needed them?


----------



## white_goodman (12 May 2009)

watching it just re-confirms why i quit playing rep footy, the whole lifestyle is not my cup of tea... when i played union however it was a very different scene, maby cos it was the whole private school thing.

Lots of gangers(women) and animals(men) in this world


----------



## white_goodman (12 May 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> The footy show apology looks pretty pathetic after the airing of the episode - and Johns - 30 years old and married at the time




matthew johns has been known to dabble in other women even recently around the north side of sydney... i think the wife would have her head in the sand to think otherwise

known = strong rumours


----------



## cuttlefish (12 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> However I'm afraid the Knights lead with their chin. One item that has received media coverage this morning is the statement by one young player that it would be a nice touch after group sex, if instead of walking away they should* get the victim a taxi home.*
> 
> They still don't get it.




Yeah I couldn't help but groan when I heard that comment ... its almost funny in a pathetic kind of way how much he missed the point - and delivered with a perfectly straight face - it does show that they have a long way to go.


----------



## Calliope (12 May 2009)

Julia said:


> And , as awg mentioned, how must their wives feel?




Any woman who married one of the thug minority would have done so with her eyes wide open.


----------



## MrBurns (12 May 2009)

Matthew Johns pisses off to WA to avoid the media, what a hero.

Says he 's very embarrased. I bet the girl wishes thats all she felt.

Worthless men, should be shunned by their sport and the media.


----------



## white_goodman (12 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> thug minority




quite an appropriate name. NRL will die if further **** like this happens, culture change required.. at all levels


----------



## Calliope (12 May 2009)

I am not surprised that Matthew Johns  has not apologised to the NZ girl. His lawyers have probably advised him not to.

I reckon if she got Slater and Gordon on the job seeking compensation, Cronulla club and Johns would shell out big bucks to settle out of court. Maybe that would be the best way to give them a wake-up call.


----------



## white_goodman (12 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> I am not surprised that Matthew Johns  has not apologised to the NZ girl. His lawyers have probably advised him not to.
> 
> I reckon if she got Slater and Gordon on the job seeking compensation, Cronulla club and Johns would shell out big bucks to settle out of court. Maybe that would be the best way to give them a wake-up call.




unfortunatly for Cronulla they have no cash to do so, they are close to bankruptcy


----------



## MrBurns (12 May 2009)

white_goodman said:


> unfortunatly for Cronulla they have no cash to do so, they are close to bankruptcy




Good send'm broke......


----------



## Julia (12 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> The compassionate treatment the girl got from the Christchurch police is a credit to them.  Where was the sisterhood when she needed them?



I can assure you that the Christchurch police are not universally as sensitive as their representative appeared to be in this instance.

What has it got to do with "the sisterhood"?
How do you know what support or otherwise she did or did not receive from women?

Difficult to see how this tangent is relevant to the original offence.


----------



## roland (12 May 2009)

I haven't read all of the posts here and couldn't watch the report on TV fully.

If the girl didn't consent, why aren't the football players involved being charged with rape?

As a kid, like most, I had a favourite football team and used to know all the players by name. Now I can't stand the way sports people, movie stars and the like get idolised way past their human worth.

Current football professionals are a disgrace, and the organisation that supports their undeserved salaries sucking money from local communities through the gambling addictions of the weak are an abomination..


----------



## Calliope (12 May 2009)

Julia said:


> What has it got to do with "the sisterhood"?
> How do you know what support or otherwise she did or did not receive from women?




I've no idea. That's why I posed the question.



> Difficult to see how this tangent is relevant to the original offence.




Difficult to make sense of this statement.


----------



## MrBurns (13 May 2009)

Matthw Johns dumped from coaching and TV, gone big time.

Now what about the others ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/13/2569212.htm


----------



## pacestick (13 May 2009)

cant see the culture changing without banning the game for such a long period that an entirely new generation comes along


----------



## MrBurns (13 May 2009)

pacestick said:


> cant see the culture changing without banning the game for such a long period that an entirely new generation comes along




I think Ch 9 should not stop at sacking Johns they should make an ultimatum that they will cease to support ,telecast or report on the game itself it anything like this happens again without immediate charges being brought against the offender/s

This should be agreed across the networks.


----------



## imajica (13 May 2009)

Thank god they acted swiftly and got rid of the bogan bottom feeder! Its pathetic that people who are glorified apes with an IQ of a housebrick can gain any sort of notoriety.


----------



## metric (13 May 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I think Ch 9 should not stop at sacking Johns they should make an ultimatum that they will cease to support ,telecast or report on the game itself it anything like this happens again without immediate charges being brought against the offender/s
> 
> This should be agreed across the networks.




and dumb bimbos whom entice young athletes into compromising situations that lead to a financial loss, should be jailed for soliciting....


----------



## investorpaul (13 May 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I think Ch 9 should not stop at sacking Johns they should make an ultimatum that they will cease to support ,telecast or report on the game itself it anything like this happens again without immediate charges being brought against the offender/s
> 
> This should be agreed across the networks.




I agree, maybe a suitable punishment would be for every major incident, where it is not dealt with immediately and appropriately that weeks matches will not be telecast, with the NRL having to compensate the network for loss of revenue.

That would make them sit up.


----------



## MrBurns (13 May 2009)

metric said:


> and dumb bimbos whom entice young athletes into compromising situations that lead to a financial loss, should be jailed for soliciting....




If the young athletes weren't dumb bimbos themselves this wouldnt happen in the first place.

This isnt a pr0n movie or a wet dream these guys are dealing with real people, even if the girl asks to be shagged by the entire team the team should have the brains to decline, otherwise they will pay the price, no point blaming the girl. If she asked you to take heroin or train surf would you ?


----------



## Kez180 (13 May 2009)

MrBurns said:


> If the young athletes weren't dumb bimbos themselves this wouldnt happen in the first place.
> 
> This isnt a pr0n movie or a wet dream these guys are dealing with real people, even if the girl asks to be shagged by the entire team the team should have the brains to decline, otherwise they will pay the price, no point blaming the girl. If she asked you to take heroin or train surf would you ?




In my opinion if a girl wants to have sex with 5+ guys, that is her business... If she regrets it in the morning that is her own stupid fault...

The second she says no, and they don't stop it has gone too far and they should be charged with rape...

The 5+ guys have to decide whether they would rather get sloppy fifths or be faithful to their girlfriends...


----------



## MrBurns (13 May 2009)

Kez180 said:


> In my opinion if a girl wants to have sex with 5+ guys, that is her business... If she regrets it in the morning that is her own stupid fault...
> 
> The second she says no, and they don't stop it has gone too far and they should be charged with rape...
> 
> The 5+ guys have to decide whether they would rather get sloppy fifths or be faithful to their girlfriends...




Well I cant imagine what sort of pig would do that anyway, shagging into their mates body fluids.

If someone asks you to shoot them you dont , if a chick, probably blind drunk, asks the team to fix her up you dont for more than one reason, otherwise you will pay.


----------



## Prospector (13 May 2009)

metric said:


> and dumb bimbos whom entice young athletes into compromising situations that lead to a financial loss, should be jailed for soliciting....




Except that isnt how this occurred.  

Poor young athletes, sweet and innocent, how can we expect 18 - 30 year old athletes to keep to the same set of moral and legal values that society expects of us mere mortals.

If they kept their zips up none of this would happen.


----------



## wabbit (13 May 2009)

Normally I don't enter into these sort of discussions... but here goes anyway:

I don't watch a lot of TV or listen to many media reports, I do know the game of Rugby League exists but that's about as far as my interest in the sport goes.  I certainly don't know all the facts of this case but here is what I have put together so far:

Seven (or so) years ago (nearly enough time has lapsed to say who cares?) some rugby league players (then, all of consensual age) had sex with a woman (also of consensual age) in New Zealand.  It started with just a couple, then more players joined in.  Some days/weeks after the event, the woman complained to police but did not want to press charges (then why go to the police?)  The police investigated and after interviewing 40 or more "witnesses" who all agreed the sex occurred with consent of the woman, the investigation was concluded.

The media, conspiracy theorists and others hint that because ALL the witnesses said the sex was consensual, they all must have been lying whilst signing their legally-binding witness statements that their account of the events was wholly-factual.  What if 100 witnesses said that nothing illegal took place, what about 1000 witnesses?  How many witnesses telling the same story does it take?

Did something sordid take place?  Yes.  Was it illegal?  Well here is the bit I still don't understand: the woman says yes, but the police who have already conducted an investigation into the matter and all the witnesses say no.  If we assume the police did their jobs in the proper manner conducting a thorough investigation and concluded there was no case to answer, this matter should be laid to rest... but for some reason it is ongoing?  Tall poppy syndrome?

The media is only pushing to flay one person who took part.  What about the others?  Why all the focus on only one person?  Is it the media with the agenda to keep this story alive?  (The sceptic in me says yes, because this is one of those stories tabloid media can pass off as "hard-hitting investigative journalism" when in fact it is just more scraping from the bottom of the barrel.)

Everyone makes their own decisions. We have all done some stupid things in our lives, some thing we regret, some things we wish we could forget.  In some people these very strong feelings of self-guilt can lead to severe depression, drug abuse/dependence, self harm or even suicide.  As much as I feel sorry (now) for the woman involved (I have dealt with my own black-dog) maybe at the time group-sex was what "floated her boat", maybe she wanted to "try it out" just as someone tries jumping off a cliff or experimenting with drugs, it might sound like a good idea at the time but it often turns out to be really stupid!  She decided to go to the hotel room with the players and so far as all the witness statements have shown, agreed to engage in sex with multiple partners that night.  Not considering the ramifications before the act or at the time is no reason to cry now and try to apportion blame to others.  Again, the cynic in me is wondering if this is going to be $$$ based?

Like with Max Mosley -- who cares what consensual individuals/couples/groups get up to in the bedroom?  Is it any of our business if a person likes to enter into a paid relationship to be whipped or spanked?  Is it any of our business that a group of men had sex with a woman who at the time agreed to participate.  I certainly don't.  These are private matters and the media should be mindful of this.

So, it raises with me the point again, why is this an issue?  It's one person's word against at least 40 others that a sordid but not illegal event occurred.  It has been investigated by supposedly reliable and honest police officers and found not to be illegal.  What do the media want, another investigation?  Do we keep investigating this until they get the answer they want? Or is the explicit details the media want because "sex sells" and the more perverted and graphic the better?    As much as grubby journalism makes headlines, this incident and those like it are far from news-worthy IMHO.


$0.02c

wabbit


----------



## Prospector (13 May 2009)

wabbit said:


> It's one person's word against at least 40 others that a sordid but not illegal event occurred.




Ah, and that is the issue with sex offences and Rugby league boys clubs, isnt it!  Someone recently published a book (I think earlier it was noted in this thread?) about their experiences with the culture of league clubs and they were hounded in the media.  His bravery in outing the culture is unique.  

It is a closed society and no-one will rat on the other.  Another issue is that they dont actually 'get it' yet.  Like on the ABC the younger guy saying it would have been ok if they had got a taxi for her to go home in.

I understand the woman involved was rated as a credible witness.  Volume of numbers on the 'other side' does not make her less credible, nor less likely that a crime took place.  The Police investigation?  Well, who knows where that went.


----------



## investorpaul (13 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> It is a closed society and no-one will rat on the other.  Another issue is that they dont actually 'get it' yet.  Like on the ABC the younger guy saying it would have been ok if they had got a taxi for her to go home in.




What about the other knuckle dragging boof head who when asked if the player would get in trouble for non consensual sex said "not if he has a good lawyer"

The sport should just be banned the only people who follow/support it are living in the dark ages.


----------



## Prospector (13 May 2009)

investorpaul said:


> What about the other knuckle dragging boof head who when asked if the player would get in trouble for non consensual sex said "not if he has a good lawyer"
> 
> The sport should just be banned the only people who follow/support it are living in the dark ages.



Havent seen the whole episode, the bit I quoted above was shown on channel 7. No doubt there are more gems to quote.  They think that money can buy them anything.  And I guess up until now, that has been the case.

The thing is, once women start telling what has happened to them over the years, given this happened several years ago, this probably wont be the last one.  Hopefully there are some players starting to get very very worried.


----------



## Duckman#72 (13 May 2009)

wabbit said:


> $0.02c




Thankfully, under our existing currency levels your $0.02c is rounded down to $0.00 - which some would argue is the correct price for your piece of work. 

Personally, I think you are being too hard on yourself. I'd pitch it at $0.03c so that we would have to round up to $0.05c,  if only because it would have taken a bit of time to write 8 paragraphs.  

I think you should take the time to watch the 4 Corners report.

Duckman


----------



## Prospector (13 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Thankfully, under our existing currency levels your $0.02c is rounded down to $0.00 - which some would argue is the correct price for your piece of work.
> 
> Personally, I think you are being too hard on yourself. I'd pitch it at $0.03c so that we would have to round up to $0.05c,  if only because it would have taken a bit of time to write 8 paragraphs.
> 
> I think you should take the time to watch the 4 Corners report.




Very clever Mr D!


----------



## awg (13 May 2009)

wabbit said:


> Normally I don't enter into these sort of discussions... but here goes anyway:
> 
> $0.02c
> 
> wabbit




I tend to agree, FWIW 

apparently he is going to respond on ACA at 7.00pm

"apparently" the other side of what went down on the night is very different to as presented on 4C.

No matter how reprehensible or disgusting people think his conduct is, he is the one that is now being hung out to dry.

I agree he had no choice but to step down, as noted in an earlier post.

I have met the dude on occasions due to our sons playing footy against each other. There are a lot worse out there in business circles, I would wager.

In the past, when I was young, I saw events similar unfold on several occasions, they all had common characteristics, including alcohol, and very poor behaviour by guys, but the girls were active participants at the time, 
lot less fun was had by all over the next few days as recriminations spread.

Whenever I see bestial behaviour, I remind myself that humans are animals, and that underlies many things, especially if inhibitions are removed.

( I have been in trouble for saying that before..so blast away)

Should see the trouble they have with young men, that have had certain head injuries in MVA, they lose control of their sexual inhibitions, with dire results


----------



## wabbit (13 May 2009)

awg said:


> apparently he is going to respond on ACA at 7.00pm




... so it is going to end up in a "he said -- she said" argument.  Pointless media sensationalism.  At least it will divert some of the attention away from the Budget.

This is why I don't watch much tv or listen to many media reports; and watching the 4-Corners report wont do much to uncover the entire truth either.



wabbit


----------



## Knobby22 (13 May 2009)

wabbit said:


> ...
> 
> This is why I don't watch much tv or listen to many media reports; and watching the 4-Corners report wont do much to uncover the entire truth either.
> 
> ...




Watching the 4 corners report has a chance of changing your view and understanding the context, so make sure that doesn't happen.


----------



## Judd (13 May 2009)

I used to follow Rugby League until one evening I had to fly from Sydney to Brisbane.  On that flight was a "victorious" Brisbane team headed by a player known as The Little General.

Never before or since have I, and possibly the rest of the civilized passengers and crew, encountered such a group of foul mouthed, inconsiderate, cretinous, drunken Neanderthal louts of which the Little General was the most obnoxious, swaggering worst of a bad bunch.

I have not watched or concerned myself with a game of Rugby League since.


----------



## Julia (13 May 2009)

I can't help thinking there must be more to this story than has currently been presented.

Why is it all making headlines now, 7 years after the event?

Why did the girl not want to press charges?  Perhaps she felt intimidated by the prospect of her life being dragged through the courts and the media.
This has stopped many women from reporting rape and/or preferring charges.

Did the NZ police not charge the players purely on the basis of the girl's wishes (but if so why did she go to the police initially), or because they felt there was no case to answer?

The point has been made that she at no stage said "Stop", "I don't want this to happen", "Leave me alone" , nor does she claim she attempted to leave but was prevented from so doing, etc etc, and the deduction therefore made that she continued to be a willing participant in the group sex.

That's probably not necessarily a valid conclusion as she was probably (a) drunk so confused and less than functional, and/or (b) in a state of shock , or a combination of the two.

We simply don't know why she did not tell them to stop, scream, or otherwise make her objections known.   
If it were happening to me, I'd be screaming bloody hell.

The 4 Corners programme discussed her present mental state, related that she was depressed, had been suicidal and showed symptoms of PTSD.
It could all be related to the episode in question, or it could have little to do with it.  We don't know anything about her, what other factors in her life could have been or are currently contributing to her state of mind.

Perhaps she was subsequently in such a state of distress that she 'buried' the incident, and more recent psychological treatment has brought it to the fore.

Why is Matthew Johns (whom I'd never heard of before reading this thread and in whom I have zilch interest) the only one being called to account.
We are told there were 6 or 7 young men involved.  Where and who are the others?  

As wabbit said (and I think some of you have been a bit hard on him/her for asking some objective questions) it's none of our or anyone's business what sort of sexual practices anyone indulges in, provided they are fully consensual and do not harm someone vulnerable, e.g. children.

I am really puzzled about why this is suddenly an issue seven years post the event.  It simply doesn't make sense to me.

And before someone jumps on me, no, I am not suggesting Johns et al are anything other than stupid, undoubtedly emotionally and morally abusive , and entirely disrespectful towards women.  Certainly towards his wife also.


----------



## Prospector (13 May 2009)

Maybe it is because Johns has been made an ambassador for Rugby League (not that we get any info about that here in SA but it has been mentioned in the programme) and he along with the original subject of this thread have been highly promoted this year.  Perhaps the positive publicity he has been getting simply pushed her to doing something about it.  Maybe she has just received counselling and the message for that was to do something about it to help her resolve the issue.  Sometimes you get to the point in life where inaction seems worse than action?

One of the cases mentioned on the programme had been hushed up by the Rugby League - the one at Bathurst I think?

Many assault cases end up as a 'he said - she said' situation.


----------



## scanspeak (13 May 2009)

This is a complete storm in a teacup. A bunch of idiots (male and female) have an orgy, and now the feminist-run media is having a hissy fit.

I had a female coworker who used to brag about sleeping with a certain well known footballer. Many women think that sex with a footballer is something to be proud of and brag to their friends about. Go to any rock concert or football game and the groupies are virtually tearing their clothes off at their bad boy idols.

Now here's an ADULT woman, who's adult enough to drink, adult enough to go back to the motel room for sex with 2 guys, but suddenly not adult enough when more than 2 guys are involved? Give me a break. She regretted it the next day. Well, you live and learn dear. Then she runs and dobs to the police to try to undo her poor choices.

Women have many well-documented reasons to change their story - to save face, for money, for attention, for regret.  Society is all too ready to paint women as victims and men as abusers. She is as culpable as them in this affair. She's a skank, and they are thugs and they all had a wild night they regret. Boo hoo.

Anyhow, it will sell a few newspapers. Rant over.


----------



## cordelia (14 May 2009)

this is sexism in reverse! Poor Matthew Johns..its so unfair.
Some desperate slapper, who can't get laid, follows a rugby team and lucks out one night with a few of the players. Years later, seeing an opportunity for financial gain, concocts some story which has weight purely because she is a female!  Now she gets a big payout for her story and in the process ruins a man's career and his livelihood!!!

Imagine if some bloke said on national Tv that he had group sex with the hockyroos!

Do you think it would get the same reaction..


This is an example of a female using her sexualtiy for financial gain and puts all genuine claims of such nature at risk!


----------



## chrislp (14 May 2009)

Kind of have to feel sorry for Johns. He's copping all this despite him being one of the two guys who the girl originally wanted to be with (at the same time mind you).


----------



## metric (14 May 2009)

MrBurns said:


> If the young athletes weren't dumb bimbos themselves this wouldnt happen in the first place.
> 
> This isnt a pr0n movie or a wet dream these guys are dealing with real people, even if the girl asks to be shagged by the entire team the team should have the brains to decline, otherwise they will pay the price, no point blaming the girl. If she asked you to take heroin or train surf would you ?





no but they are illegal.....

johns did nothing legally wrong. just morally stupid. he has no monopoly on that!!

im sick of hearing about this poor girl. she made decisions, enjoyed being in that position, asked to be in that position, kept asking for more blokes to have sex with her, even chosing which ones from the lineup....

if i was mrs johns last night, id have layed the boot into that ho!!



.


----------



## dutchie (14 May 2009)

Johns did not make a very good trade.

Risk -  7years
Reward - 30 seconds

Risk:Reward Ratio =  7,358,400 : 1


----------



## Prospector (14 May 2009)

cordelia said:


> this is sexism in reverse! Poor Matthew Johns..its so unfair.
> Some desperate slapper, who can't get laid, follows a rugby team and lucks out one night with a few of the players. Years later, seeing an opportunity for financial gain, concocts some story which has weight purely because she is a female!  Now she gets a big payout for her story and in the process ruins a man's career and his livelihood!!!
> 
> Imagine if some bloke said on national Tv that he had group sex with the hockyroos!




Poor Matthew, he participated in a sexual orgy, at the age of 30, being a husband and father.  So desperate he has to have sex with (in your words) a slapper. 

The only thing I agree with is that he is the fall guy.  The others should be pursued just as vigorously as he has been.  However, the difference between Johns and the others though, is that Johns is paid as a mentor, coach and spokesperson for the Rugby League.  And that makes a big difference.

From what I understand she did not consent to have sex with all of those players and Johns knew that.


----------



## MrBurns (14 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> Poor Matthew, he participated in a sexual orgy, at the age of 30, being a husband and father.  So desperate he has to have sex with (in your words) a slapper.
> 
> The only thing I agree with is that he is the fall guy.  The others should be pursued just as vigorously as he has been.  However, the difference between Johns and the others though, is that Johns is paid as a mentor, coach and spokesperson for the Rugby League.  And that makes a big difference.
> 
> From what I understand she did not consent to have sex with all of those players and Johns knew that.




Agree, the others will be flushed out wait and see. 4 Corners dont make mistakes they wouldnt have taken this story on if it wasnt 100% correct.

Matthew Johns admitted he's been waiting 7 years for the phone to ring over this, so there was more to this than meets the eye, she was used big time and now the heros will pay .........thats justice.


----------



## metric (14 May 2009)

4 corners is simply gutter jornalism.

where are the real news stories? where is the in depth probes into corporate corruption, political corruption, mechinations of the church in the corporate world, obamas birth certificate, obamas dead gay church members, the missing 9 trillion of the fed reserve, 911, etc, etc..?

go on 4 corners, give the sheep another moraliy play. dont investigate real issues. after all, it is morality plays that you are employed to dig up, to cover up the real issues that sheep arent allowed to think about.


.


----------



## Duckman#72 (14 May 2009)

Julia said:


> I am really puzzled about why this is suddenly an issue seven years post the event.  It simply doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> And before someone jumps on me, no, I am not suggesting Johns et al are anything other than stupid, undoubtedly emotionally and morally abusive , and entirely disrespectful towards women.  Certainly towards his wife also.




Hi Julia

I think you have, without knowing it, answered your own question. 

Matthew Johns has an extremely high profile in NRL - so much so that he was an NRL ambassador for the NRL membership drive. He is well regarded and looked up to by all (in Rugby League circles) through his media and playing achievements. 

I'll ask a question using a quote from your last post : What sort of message does it send from the NRL when one of their most highly regarded personalities is considered to be _*stupid, undoubtedly emotionally and morally abusive and entirely disrepectful towards women*_? 

I don't think there is anything sinister about the timing of the story. Sure it happened in 2002 but that hardly makes it ancient history. And people seem to be missing the point - it has been the 4 Corners report regarding the NRL's culture and it's attitude towards sexual conduct that is at the core. 

To that end, I agree that Matthew Johns is playing the price for wearing the can for not only the Christchurch incident, but for EVERY NRL PLAYER WHO HAS ENGAGED in such activity. The NRL want Matty to be the fall guy. If the NRL has any sense, the 10 May 2009 will go down in NRL history as a watershed day. The line in the sand has been drawn by the NRL regarding the behaviour of players. Pre and Post Matty Johns. 

But this story isn't *just* about Matty Johns - look at the big picture. The NRL, and Cronulla should be ashamed of itself - they have hung Matty Johns out to dry. The NRL are great at making decsions - but only when they are absolutely forced to.  

Those people who look at this event as "The Matty Johns Saga" are completely missing the big picture.  

And I fail to see how Wabbit can suggest that the woman is doing this for $$$. Does that seem the likely to anyone?  It is very easy to forgive, turn a blind eye, dismiss........(call it what you like)...........the poor behaviour, either criminal or moral, just because someone is liked, can kick a footy or have a high profile.  In the AFL, if Wayne Carey and Ben Cousins were "sorted out" early in their careers instead of being treated as Gods, there is a fair chance they would find themselves in a different position today.    

Duckman


----------



## Sean K (14 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> From what I understand she did not consent to have sex with all of those players and Johns knew that.



I agree Johns deserves all he gets, but lets not jump to conclusions about this woman, her behaviour, and current motives. 

Could it be that she was happy to be there at the time but has since had a change of mind, and is now seeing $$ signs?

I await to see the outcome.

I doubt the full truth, fact, and feeling will be the outcome. 

Just alterior motives.


----------



## metric (14 May 2009)

ok wowsers...

should rock n roll stars lose their contracts for having group sex? should tennis players? golf players? corporate executives? police?

why footballers only?


.


----------



## MrBurns (14 May 2009)

kennas said:


> I agree Johns deserves all he gets, but lets not jump to conclusions about this woman, her behavior, and current motives.
> 
> Could it be that she was happy to be there at the time but has since had a change of mind, and is now seeing $$ signs?
> 
> ...




Johns said he tried to apologize to her at the time when it was over, so I think that answers that.

I feel sorry for him he obviously knew the gravity of what went on and felt the guilt ever since, as he said in his interview he was somewhat relieved when 4 Corners rang him, to get it over with.

I've never seen a guy look quite as guilty as Johns, but I don't think it would be his normal behavior, he seems a decent chap really.


----------



## awg (14 May 2009)

I wonder who it is responsible for re-starting this sh!tstorm.

IMO, they have something to answer for.

Psychology and the notion of Karma, are things that interest me.

The devastation wrought on the Johns family is wrong.

I also seriously doubt that the lady in question will find the aftermath healing.

This is very debatable, but the evidence suggests she is suffering mental illness, as defined, and is likely to continue to do so, and quite possibly was unstable before. Theories differ on how the sufferer/victim should move forward

I dont know whether she initiated, on the advice of a therapist, but I suspect she has been poorly advised, and maybe even USED, by 4C, for media ratings.

The way towards healing is not normally found through destruction of innocent victims, all concerned bring heavy adverse karma upon themselves, if they act in this way.

Matthew Johns now finds his karma.

The others involved will find theirs, including journalist and producer.


----------



## Calliope (14 May 2009)

After listening to Matthew Johns last night and reading this morning's posts I must admit that I have had an epiphany and now realise that he has been subjected to unfair vilification by the media and I must admit, by me.
*
Let's look at this thing objectively;

. here was a 30 year old respected family man going about his business of being a role model for young footballers and a mentor for his team.

. he is accosted by a 19 year old kitchen hand (probably drunk) who is attracted by his fame, his rugged good looks and his fabulous sense of humour.

. she puts the hard word on him for a sexual romp.

. being a gentleman he cannot refuse.

. after giving her a serve any woman should be grateful for, and still being a gentleman, he steps back to allow his mates to gratify her wanton sexual desires.

. still being the gentleman he apologises to her afterwards in the car park for his mates' over  exuberance.

. for any decent girl that should be the end of it, but as Cordelia knows she is using this this harmless frolic as an opportunity to make big bucks. 

. as for the wives, partners and girlfriends they are naturally disgusted that this shameless hussy could use the bodies of their heroes in such a vile way, and get away with it.*


----------



## MrBurns (14 May 2009)

metric said:


> 4 corners is simply gutter jornalism.
> .




ROFL splutter cough choke...........I dont think anyone has ever said that before, and I dont think It will be said again.:headshake


----------



## scanspeak (14 May 2009)

Why is it that the media does not question HER behaviour, and the behaviour of groupie's in general?

Why do week seek understanding and compassion for the woman, but immediately condemn and vilify the man, in not just this case, but in all cases of sexual misconduct?

This chivalrous infantilizing of women is ridiculous, and this woman is manipulating the media and the Australian public. Being an adult means you take responsibility for your choices. Mathew Johns has done that, SHE has not.


----------



## Duckman#72 (14 May 2009)

metric said:


> ok wowsers...
> 
> should rock n roll stars lose their contracts for having group sex? should tennis players? golf players? corporate executives? police?
> 
> ...




Metric  - in your own words, why do you think his contract was not renewed with Channel Nine (his employer)? 

This is about protecting the interest of the Network. They cannot afford to be seen to be condoning degrading attitudes towards women. To that same drum beat, the NRL have cut him loose, to distance themselves from his actions and beliefs.

I'll answer your question - every person that engages in group sex runs the risk of personal and public ridicule, embarrassment and even criminal charges as it is so subjective. "Sure the girl loved it - she was really into it,...but I guess I only saw her when the first 10 roadies had been with her....I don't know what happened with the other 6."

The difference between golf players and TV personalities is that golf players have a career playing golf. TV personalities are employed to be the face of the Network. 

If the country is full of wowers that now only see 10 blokes and a naked girl in a Christchurch room when Matty Johns comes on the screen....then that is just the way it is.

Duckman


----------



## moXJO (14 May 2009)

If he were charged with rape that’s one thing. And while his act was morally questionable it was consensual as far as we know. He has lost his job and career, any respect he might have had and has been under extreme media scrutiny. I think its all going a bit too far unless there’s more to the story.


----------



## metric (14 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Metric  - in your own words, why do you think his contract was not renewed with Channel Nine (his employer)?




because they are a hypocritical bunch sex promoting cowards. the degredation of the moral standard of tv, shows their real intent.

pure, utter cowardly scum.


.


----------



## moXJO (14 May 2009)

And this after the numb nut goes to a strip club
Is this simply an attention diverter for him after the budget or what?
It's on every radio station every TV network and all the papers. It’s like a media frenzy.


> PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has called on all sporting codes to foster greater respect for women, following the group sex scandal involving rugby league personality Matthew Johns.




http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25479402-29277,00.html


----------



## scanspeak (14 May 2009)

Channel 9 , the network who's staple fare is men being hit in the balls on Australia's Funniest Home Videos.


----------



## shag (14 May 2009)

kennas said:


> I agree Johns deserves all he gets, but lets not jump to conclusions about this woman, her behaviour, and current motives.
> 
> Could it be that she was happy to be there at the time but has since had a change of mind, and is now seeing $$ signs?
> 
> ...




there really no dollars in his sort of thing in nz, like u cant sue anyone for personal injury etc. the nz cops took it very seriously, but what do u do when theres one vrs a dozen statements-all the same.
plus once johns made a formal police statement, he has to keep to it or hes in the slammer.
she was just some quiet naive country girl going to lincoln or canterbury uni.
and surely the idiot saw it all comming, and could have tried to clean it up by a public appology to the girl before having it drawn out of him. and his wife was doing well to protect her income stream. i guess he assumed it would be covered up like usual.
theres plenty on the girls background if u look, it dosent appear she even gets close to that fugly slapper also on the tv show.
i doubt moneys a motivation, she stated her motivation.
and why would johns worry about it for 7 yrs when it was so innocent and all.

his very few answers were just scripted by his pr advisors and lawyers.


----------



## awg (14 May 2009)

Mysogony...that is one reason this is blown up in Rugby League.

The Footy Show...I cant bear it, but my youngest is a player and watcher.

The way those b@stards treated the prominent female sports journo ( name escapes me) who was panelist, was downright embarrassing to me as a male.

So now Matt Johns gone, who held it together.
Fatty so far past his use by date he stinks
Stirlo, good when he is not on camera.
Andrew Johns...tainted

hard to see where they are going to go.

On another note, I worked for some years with a young lady who was a diehard football groupie. She was fairly open about this, and described to me some situations she had been involved in.

She had many competitors, who used to compete incredibly visciously for the best opportunities...it was a game within a game, played as hard of the field, as on.

She often not able to entice the players, and missed out, despite being attractive and offering to perform various acts of indecency.

I know some of the guys as well, most of them really dont like this sort of thing, because they are too scared of getting caught out by their partner.

one thing for sure..these virile young fellows will be needing to exercise a lot of discretion before unzipping their flies.

final point...dont think Matt Johns used it as an excuse, to his credit.

but the amount of alcohol these guys consume, is by far the biggest cause of most all of the problems


----------



## Knobby22 (14 May 2009)

scanspeak said:


> Why is it that the media does not question HER behaviour, and the behaviour of groupie's in general?
> 
> Why do week seek understanding and compassion for the woman, but immediately condemn and vilify the man, in not just this case, but in all cases of sexual misconduct?
> 
> This chivalrous infantilizing of women is ridiculous, and this woman is manipulating the media and the Australian public. Being an adult means you take responsibility for your choices. Mathew Johns has done that, SHE has not.




*Yea! If she was in Iran we would stone her to death! *
What rot! She is getting nothing out of it.
I know when I was 19 I was pretty innocent and could be dominated by older people. 

At the time she was young and she got picked up by her hero, then shared with guys much bigger than her then left in the carpark like a piece of meat. One of the guys later said they should have got her a taxi.

It has ruined her life and trust in men and now after psychological problems she would now like to see them get some justice. Big rich successful Johns can look after himself. People have lost their jobs for less. Many people including me cannot stand the sight of him so he is no good for the ratings anyway.

It says a lot about some of the guys here about how they treat women.


----------



## Prospector (14 May 2009)

It can be difficult for some men to understand the sheer power that men can have over women.  Power that translates to inability to scream, move, or do anything.  Kind of like the way animals, when dazzled by a light seem to lack the ability to move.  They simply freeze on the spot.  Particularly 19 year old women with well bulked men in their twenties - thirties.  En masse.  Add to that mix alcohol.  

I understand that the ABC do not pay people they use in their stories.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (14 May 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> It says a lot about some of the guys here about how they treat women.




Yep. For my part, I would believe that a star-struck girl made a dumb mistake and was taken advantage of by a group of testosterone-ridden, self-important opportunists. I can easily envisage how such a situation could have turned ugly very quickly. Maybe she kept it together and pretended to go along in order to keep herself safe. I find that more believable than a bunch of apes 'gentlemanly' taking their turn with a willing young girl.


----------



## Sean K (14 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> It can be difficult for some men to understand the sheer power that men can have over women.  Power that translates to inability to scream, move, or do anything.  Kind of like the way animals, when dazzled by a light seem to lack the ability to move.  They simply freeze on the spot.  Particularly 19 year old women with well bulked men in their twenties - thirties.  En masse.  Add to that mix alcohol.
> 
> I understand that the ABC do not pay people they use in their stories.



You think she had no idea what she was getting herself into, P?

And, maybe money for a story is not the only value people get out of airing their confessions. 

This is really good phychosocioanalysis stuff here. Very interesting. 

Shame it happened, but interesting nonetheless.


----------



## Pappon (14 May 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> *she would now like to see them get some justice*



*

The act wasn't deemed illegal. It was investigated by police. 

Did this lady ever take any responsibility for her actions and the choices she made that night? She has and always had the right at anytime to discontinue with what was happening/happened that night. 

It obviously has turned out that the lady has developed emotional problems for which she will need to seek out help for herself.

Matthew Johns never forced himself on this girl and yet he is getting treated as such for which is incorrect. How about the girl? How about being treated like a criminal in the media when you are no such thing, how about that theory?

While i feel sorry that this lady has developed emotional problems it always takes 2 to tango*


----------



## Prospector (14 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> The act wasn't deemed illegal. It was investigated by police.
> 
> Did this lady ever take any responsibility for her actions and the choices she made that night?




The Act was not 'deemed legal'.  The evidence was simply not there to press charges.  One female versus 12 Rugby Gods!  Kennas, the girl asked a player for sex, specifically Johns according to his story.  Two people went into the bedroom, another 10 males followed!  You really think she chose to have sex with all of them?

And what is it with some men who like to 'go' where their friends have just been.  Seriously gross.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> The act wasn't deemed illegal. It was investigated by police.
> 
> Did this lady ever take any responsibility for her actions and the choices she made that night?




I think you need to look at the definition of justice, there are many.
Being able to punish someone by the law is not justice. One definition:

" justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned; or, in many versions, from what they would agree to under hypothetical conditions including equality and absence of bias."
Or from Webster: the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action


----------



## scanspeak (14 May 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> *
> At the time she was young and she got picked up by her hero, then shared with guys much bigger than her then left in the carpark like a piece of meat. One of the guys later said they should have got her a taxi.
> It has ruined her life and trust in men and now after psychological problems she would now like to see them get some justice.
> It says a lot about some of the guys here about how they treat women.*



*

There are some here that want to treat woman like children, and others here that want to treat them as equals. 

I belong in the latter group, so maybe I have more respect for the female gender than you.*


----------



## Julia (14 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Matthew Johns has an extremely high profile in NRL - so much so that he was an NRL ambassador for the NRL membership drive. He is well regarded and looked up to by all (in Rugby League circles) through his media and playing achievements.
> 
> 
> And people seem to be missing the point - it has been the 4 Corners report regarding the NRL's culture and it's attitude towards sexual conduct that is at the core.
> ...



Hi Duckman,
OK, thanks for explaining the context.  I'm entirely ignorant (thankfully) about anything to do with football and its stars.
Still, I'm puzzled about why the girl would want to talk about such an experience in a television programme.   And how did she come to be included in the programme?  Did 4 Corners dig around until they found her, and persuade her to describe her experience in order to add weight to their story about the generally woeful conduct of football stars?





Calliope said:


> After listening to Matthew Johns last night and reading this morning's posts I must admit that I have had an epiphany and now realise that he has been subjected to unfair vilification by the media and I must admit, by me.
> *
> Let's look at this thing objectively;
> 
> ...



Calliope, you seem to somehow have knowledge of the thoughts and motivations of the girl concerned and be completely sure that she was 100% a victim.
Just one question for you:   do you think it is impossible for any woman to be attracted to the idea of group sex, and to participate therein if such an opportunity were to be suggested?

I'm making no judgements about the girl.  I can't because I have no idea about what sort of person she was.


----------



## Knobby22 (14 May 2009)

scanspeak said:


> There are some here that want to treat woman like children, and others here that want to treat them as equals.
> 
> I belong in the latter group, so maybe I have more respect for the female gender than you.




Sure, she was treated as an equal, they even went to the pub with her after to discuss it and say how good it was. Johns was doing her a favour!


----------



## Pappon (14 May 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> I think you need to look at the definition of justice, there are many.
> Being able to punish someone by the law is not justice. One definition:
> 
> " justice is derived from the mutual agreement of everyone concerned; or, in many versions, from what they would agree to under hypothetical conditions including equality and absence of bias."
> Or from Webster: the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action





We could go back and forth justifying our opinion all day so i'm not going to spend my time doing that, i have an opinion which differs from yours.


----------



## Duckman#72 (14 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> it always takes 2 to tango




Yes Pappon - but how many does it take for a group tango?

What happens if you end up dancing with someone you don't want to, or worse - didn't even know was there?

What if you said yes to the first dance partner and then more people cut in? You're in the middle of dancing, so nothing wrong with a new partner.... two...... or three? 

Yes those Group Tango's can be messy.

Duckman


----------



## scanspeak (14 May 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Sure, she was treated as an equal, they even went to the pub with her after to discuss it and say how good it was. Johns was doing her a favour!




Adults are supposed to take responsibility for their choices. She's 19, treat her as an adult.

You can't act as a willing participant, and then change your mind the next day. You cant pick and choose to be an adult when it suits you.


----------



## Pappon (14 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Yes Pappon - but how many does it take for a group tango?
> 
> What happens if you end up dancing with someone you don't want to, or worse - didn't even know was there?
> 
> ...




You say no


----------



## Pappon (14 May 2009)

scanspeak said:


> Adults are supposed to take responsibility for their choices.
> She's 19, treat her as an adult.




No in this day we are taught to blame someone for the consequences that results of our choices (from the media). Perfect example, Wayne Swan "oh debt is the fault of the liberals". Yeah because the libs handed out all that money didn't they Swan, retard!


----------



## MS+Tradesim (14 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> You say no




Yes. I can just picture those players now..."Geez. Sorry lady. We'll go find someone else then! You have a good night."


----------



## Pappon (14 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> Yes. I can just picture those players now..."Geez. Sorry lady. We'll go find someone else then! You have a good night."




Sounds like the benefit of forsight right there


----------



## nunthewiser (14 May 2009)

wonders if it was the ladies team mauling some young man if there would be the same reaction


----------



## metric (14 May 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> wonders if it was the ladies team mauling some young man if there would be the same reaction




no. just like female teachers get off for molesting boys...


.


----------



## Calliope (14 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Calliope, you seem to somehow have knowledge of the thoughts and motivations of the girl concerned and be completely sure that she was 100% a victim.
> Just one question for you:   do you think it is impossible for any woman to be attracted to the idea of group sex, and to participate therein if such an opportunity were to be suggested?
> 
> I'm making no judgements about the girl.  I can't because I have no idea about what sort of person she was.




You seem to have mis-read my post. Can't you see I have recanted? This girl obviously seduced the guys.


----------



## Duckman#72 (14 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> No in this day we are taught to blame someone for the consequences that results of our choices (from the media).




I can imagine that in your world Pappon, there is only right or wrong, black and white, yes and no. Unfortunately, here on Earth, there are many degrees of grey.

You posted the above comment as an attack on the girl involved. It could very easily be said about Matty Johns. Stop blaming others for where you find yourself. Can you see the shades of grey?  

Duckman

(PS I'm beginning to think that you've never Group Tango'd!)


----------



## MS+Tradesim (14 May 2009)

Duckman,

In fairyland, a girl would never feel so intimidated and lacking in control that she would continue to participate while fearing for her safety. She would always say no, and her no would always be respected...even by drunken, testosterone driven males.

Sheesh.


----------



## Pappon (14 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> I can imagine that in your world Pappon, there is only right or wrong, black and white, yes and no. Unfortunately, here on Earth, there are many degrees of grey.
> 
> You posted the above comment as an attack on the girl involved. It could very easily be said about Matty Johns. Stop blaming others for where you find yourself. Can you see the shades of grey?
> 
> ...




What planet are you on? Posted that as an attack on the girl WOW TWIST MY WORDS WOULD YOU.

MY POINT = Matthew Johns was NOT found guilty of anything illegal don't tear his whole life apart. How's that for BLACK AND WHITE. Dudman

Here's a quote from my first post for you to re read fool "Matthew Johns never forced himself on this girl and yet he is getting treated as such for which is incorrect. How about the girl? How about being treated like a criminal in the media when you are no such thing, how about that theory?"

My point again he was not charged = no conviction = don't treat him like a criminal.


----------



## Duckman#72 (14 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Hi Duckman,
> OK, thanks for explaining the context.  I'm entirely ignorant (thankfully) about anything to do with football and its stars.
> Still, I'm puzzled about why the girl would want to talk about such an experience in a television programme.   And how did she come to be included in the programme?  Did 4 Corners dig around until they found her, and persuade her to describe her experience in order to add weight to their story about the generally woeful conduct of football stars?




Hi Julia

I don't know the answer to all these questions. I guess 4 Corners do what they are paid to do - find stories. With this years Brett Stewart sexual assault charge and last years Bronco "sex tryst in a toilet" saga - a report into the NRL footy culture can hardly be seen as "out of the blue". In fact Julia - you are doing very well to stay isolated from all the off field incidents. 

Yes we can get all theoretical about "getting in her head" and finding out what she is going to gain from all this but sometimes you need to take things on face value. Maybe she is not getting big $$$$ from this, maybe she isn't interested in celebrity fame, maybe she is actually telling the truth. 

One thing I've learnt - if it walks like a duck, and it talks like a duck.......it's usually a duck.

Quack

Duckman


----------



## Duckman#72 (14 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> Posted that as an attack on the girl WOW TWIST MY WORDS WOULD YOU.




Hey that was cool. 

Did you mean to write it like that on purpose or are you Yoda?

Dudman


----------



## Pappon (14 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Hey that was cool.
> 
> Did you mean to write it like that on purpose or are you Yoda?
> 
> Dudman




That is so totally off the argument, it makes you sound like a complete fool

Go Duckman, yeah! Quack!


----------



## Duckman#72 (14 May 2009)

You newbies get stirred up easily!! I apologise for getting off topic.

Can I get you to explain your post #238. What was your underlying argument, in particular to the quote you replied to?

Were you....or were you not, implying that the girl needs to live with her decision and not to blame others for her actions. That is what I understood you to mean.

As a side issue - if you read all my posts, I have continually said this is not about Matty Johns. He unfortunately collateral damage from the big NRL Sexual Conduct bomb. I agree he has paid a big price BUT you are forgetting that he has lost his contract DESPITE being found to have done nothing illegal. He didn't get the spear because of any criminal element, he got the spear because the network found it all so degrading and unsavoury. I have never, ever said he is a criminal.


May the force be with you
Duckman


----------



## Prospector (14 May 2009)

I have just watched the ABC programme after having read this post.  It seems that the girl has come forward to the ABC, or at least was prepared to talk publically now, because she is at the 'Angry' stage of the grief cycle - she wants the wives and girlfriends to know what their men are capable of.

You guys who say the girls are asking for it by getting drunk and wearing sexy clothes.  Ask yourself this:

If a girl is drunk and is with two guys and agrees to have sex but with one of them, not the other, but the two guys secretly tag each other, and she has sex unkowingly with both, is that rape?

If a guy got drunk in a pub and found himself in a back room with another guy who helped him get there, would he then deserve to be anally raped?  

Those same two issues were posed to the Rugby Junior team - guess what, their consensus was that the Girl was asking for it, the guy wasn't!  Kinda sums up these people's understanding of sex, doesnt it!


----------



## Pappon (14 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> You newbies get stirred up easily!! I apologise for getting off topic.
> 
> Can I get you to explain your post #238. What was your underlying argument, in particular to the quote you replied to?
> 
> ...




My underlying point is don't tear apart someones whole financial and family life when they have not been convicted of doing anything wrong. 

Professor Duckman you are acusing me of slaming an attack on a girl in this thread. May i refer to your post #244 

*'I can imagine that in your world Pappon, there is only right or wrong, black and white, yes and no. Unfortunately, here on Earth, there are many degrees of grey."* are you hereby slamming an attack on me this would seem very hypocritical wouldn't it Duckman?? Were you....or were you not, personally attacking me?? as i understood it as such.


The darkside is strong with you Duckman


----------



## Prospector (14 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> My underlying point is don't tear apart someones whole financial and family life when they have not been convicted of doing anything wrong.




He did do something 'wrong' though, didnt he.  He even admitted that himself when he apologised to Claire in the Car Park.  If he did nothing 'wrong' why would he do that.

I do agree he is the fall guy here, but he is also the one who is a major public face of Rugby.  That is why he had to go.


----------



## Pappon (14 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> He did do something 'wrong' though, didnt he.  He even admitted that himself when he apologised to Claire in the Car Park.  If he did nothing 'wrong' why would he do that.
> 
> I do agree he is the fall guy here, but he is also the one who is a major public face of Rugby.  That is why he had to go.




Sorry Prospector while i would agree what happened was not great it was not illegal (as investigated by police) i should have used that instead of the word wrong my apologies. . 

However i still hold my point no conviction of anything illegal his whole family and financial life should not be hammered in the way it was, which seems as though you have the same opinion on that as myself


----------



## Duckman#72 (14 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> My underlying point is don't tear apart someones whole financial and family life when they have not been convicted of doing anything wrong.
> 
> Professor Duckman you are acusing me of slaming an attack on a girl in this thread. May i refer to your post #244
> 
> ...




Cool........I've gone from Dudman to Professor Duckman in the space of two posts. That's what I call respect!! 

I'm sorry but I don't buy your first paragraph. Don't get me wrong....it is very well written and is a well constructed argument but it is completely out of context with anything you wrote in post 238. That might have been what you were thinking but it is not what you wrote. I think you are delving into a different thread - perhaps "Has Matty Johns Paid a too High Price for his Sex Romp?". 

I apologise for suggesting that you were from another planet. I know how hurtful that can be.  

Professor Duckman (I like that.....has a ring to it)


----------



## Prospector (14 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> Sorry Prospector while i would agree what happened was not great it was not illegal (as investigated by police) i should have used that instead of the word wrong my apologies.
> 
> However i still hold my point no conviction of anything illegal his whole family and financial life should not be hammered in the way it was, which seems as though you have the same opinion on that as myself




I do, the other people involved, some being club officials, are pretty gutless.  But maybe they dont get that what they have done is wrong.

But sometimes in life it is not the things you might do illegally that get you unstuck, but the things you do that are morally wrong.  Especially, as in this case, he has been used as a mentor to younger players.  It is desperately sad for his wife and children; but she has chosen to stay with him - I dont think I could even bear to look at him again knowing what he did - and maybe whatever else has happened.


----------



## nunthewiser (14 May 2009)

hahahahah what a poet!



> I apologise for suggesting that you were from another planet. I know how hurtful that can be.





i may have to borrow that one , if you please 

thanks in advance


----------



## Pappon (14 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Cool........I've gone from Dudman to Professor Duckman in the space of two posts. That's what I call respect!!
> 
> I'm sorry but I don't buy your first paragraph. Don't get me wrong....it is very well written and is a well constructed argument but it is completely out of context with anything you wrote in post 238. That might have been what you were thinking but it is not what you wrote. I think you are delving into a different argument "Has Matty Johns Paid to High Price for his Sex Romp".
> 
> ...




Duckman this getting like a legal battle in court i'll agree to disagree with you. Yes i think he paid too high a price yes thanks to the media. 

I'd love to see all the journalists lives scrutinized in fact let's put that to channel 10 as a reality show.

"*Journalists unleashed*, they are gonna wish they never became one"

I could see it now  "Turn the f**ken camera off, don't you people have a life, where do you get off dragging up my private life" lol


----------



## Duckman#72 (14 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> Duckman this getting like a legal battle in court i'll agree to disagree with you. Yes i think he paid too high a price yes thanks to the media.
> 
> I'd love to see all the journalists lives scrutinized in fact let's put that to channel 10 as a reality show.
> 
> "*Journalists unleashed*, they are gonna wish they never became one"




Ha - you are a good sport. 

I agree it would be very interesting to put the private lives of others into the spotlight. It is ironic that Johns life has been destroyed, through the very two things that put him on the pedestal - football and the media.

I feel so very sorry for his children. I can't imagine what position they find themselves.

Duckman


----------



## Pappon (14 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Ha - you are a good sport.




 as are you matey! The darkside is strong in you lol


----------



## Prospector (14 May 2009)

Sigh:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/lhqnews/you-won...1894044999.html

Particularly this line...

"We already have so many rules: we can't drink on these days, we can't go to these places, *now we can't have group sex*. About the only thing we can do these days is go to club functions, and just hang around other players. That's just isolating us more from the rest of the world, and it could lead to even more violent acts."

No hope.


----------



## Kez180 (14 May 2009)

Article not found...

No chance you could pull it up out of your history and screen shot it is there?


----------



## Happy (14 May 2009)

> From ABC 14 May 2009
> 
> SHARKS WON'T NAME GROUP SEX PLAYERS
> 
> ...





Matthew is more and more of a scapegoat by the minute.


----------



## metric (14 May 2009)

the only high profile player left from that 2002 sharks squad is brett kimmorley....



.


----------



## tcoates (14 May 2009)

Full link on site...

www.smh.com.au

page is...

/news/lhqnews/you-wont-stop-our-sex-romps--rep-star/2009/05/13/1241894044999.html


----------



## Prospector (14 May 2009)

Kez180 said:


> Article not found...
> 
> No chance you could pull it up out of your history and screen shot it is there?




Does this link work better?
http://www.smh.com.au/news/lhqnews/...romps--rep-star/2009/05/13/1241894044999.html

Defiant rep star says group sex romps will keep happening

Jamie Pandaram | May 14, 2009

THE comments of one senior NRL representative player indicate how difficult it could be to change the sexual behaviour and attitudes of elite league players.

He warned group sex among NRL players would continue regardless of a warnings from chief executive David Gallop that unsavoury sexual acts would put their contracts at risk. The representative player told the Herald that his colleagues were left stunned by Gallop's hardline stance when no player had been convicted of sexual assault, adding that the caution would quickly be forgotten.

"It's fine for David Gallop to come out and say you can't have group sex but the last thing blokes will be thinking about on a Friday night at the club is David Gallop," said the player, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "I don't know how a chief executive can come out and say we can't have group sex if it's consensual. It's like discrimination because that is a person's private life. It's like saying you can't be homosexual, or you can't have such-and-such sexual preferences. How can he tell us what we can do in our private lives? What if there's more women than guys, is that wrong, too?

"We already have so many rules: we can't drink on these days, we can't go to these places, now we can't have group sex. About the only thing we can do these days is go to club functions, and just hang around other players. That's just isolating us more from the rest of the world, and it could lead to even more violent acts."

He said group sex was largely initiated by women, and therefore the players felt unfairly targeted by criticism swirling around the game since a report by Four Corners on Monday detailed the lasting psychological impact on a woman after an incident involving Cronulla players in 2002.

The report prompted Gallop to advise players that group sex was degrading to women, and he warned those who took part in such activities they could be kicked out of the game. "I think on any level it is still an extremely degrading experience," Gallop said on Tuesday. "It also has a lot of risk involved in it and players need to know that.

"If you are not on board with the change that we are endeavouring to implement then don't play rugby league."

However, the player said change would be difficult because women would continue to proposition them.

"Players get a lot of attention from girls in the clubs because they've got a high profile. That's not the players' fault," he said.

"Most of the time the girl goes back willingly and consents to everything, but sometimes regrets it when she wakes up in the morning and says, 'I didn't want that to happen,' and that's when the problems start.

"I don't know one single guy in the NRL who would resort to holding a woman down against her will or raping her, and nobody would condone that.

"I do see what they're saying about risk; you just never know how a girl's going to react afterwards. You're not supposed to say it publicly, but everyone knows that if you're polite afterwards and pay her cab fare home you usually don't have any problems."

He added that former players often told stories of their sexual exploits to the game's current generation. "Some of the stories you hear from the older guys, I wouldn't really say it was worse than what happens now but it was going on a long time ago, but there was just no media reports about it back then."

Another player said he believed group sex involving teammates was being phased out of the game, while several others refused to talk about the issue.


----------



## Jewels (14 May 2009)

15 years ago I used to work with a very high profile AFL player.  Couldn't wait for Monday mornings at work to get the low down on his/their exploits on the weekend.  This sought of thing has been going on for decades.  There are females out there who are effectivly AFL/NRL/NBL groupies who want to get into group sex with a few fine bodied athletes.  Until you get rid of the groupies you'll always have this sought of problem within the sport.  I actually feal sorry for MJ in all this and think it was absolutely disgusting what channel 9 did to one of it's own employees.   Shame channel 9 shame.


----------



## metric (14 May 2009)

it is no accident that this "story" broke during the budget. its called a "morality play". it is designed to take focus off important topics. distract the sheep etc.....

for instance...you still dont know who australia is borrowing all this money from, do you....!

and; you know more about matt johns indescretion than you do about the budget. and this is a shares forum!!!! imagine how clueless the general population is!!!!



.


----------



## Prospector (14 May 2009)

A rather different version of events here:

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2397260/Sex-consensual-Johns

_In her interview with The Press, the woman said she talked to some of the players when she was a waitress-kitchen hand at the Racecourse Hotel.

She bumped into the players at the Holy Grail in central Christchurch on the Thursday night (the night before the incident) and had drinks with them. They wanted her to go back to the hotel with her that night, "but I didn't because I've got a boyfriend and I'm not dirty".

On the Friday two players waited for her to finish work.

"I kind of wanted to leave, but they said come back to our room for a talk or whatever. I walked behind them because I kind of didn't want to go back. But I didn't think anything bad would happen," she said.

"They, like, left the sliding door unlocked or open, with the curtain pulled and the bathroom window open and stuff, so the whole team came back and knew about it. They knew what was happening.

"They sidled in and crawled along the floor where I couldn't see them and all came in, and climbed in through the windows and stuff, and next thing I knew everyone was in there.

"They are saying, `We didn't let it happen and it wasn't planned'. It was so planned."

The woman said the incident lasted a couple of hours and there were other girls in other rooms, but she believed them to be prostitutes.

"I'm quite young [19]. When I went in there I was wearing a blue T-shirt and black three-quarter pants. I wasn't all slutted up in, like, tights or whatever," she said.

"Matthew's married. They were the players, they started it off and they did lots of the main stuff, but then there were four other guys, five other guys ... who did heaps of gross other stuff and they're just as bad as those two._


----------



## metric (14 May 2009)

most females i know that have boyfiends wouldnt have gone into that room with the two footy players.......because they REALLY ARENT DIRTY!

seems like the woman has a bad case of denial and guilt, and is looking for someone to blame it on..


.


----------



## Prospector (14 May 2009)

I think men climbing through windows to get to the girl is totally inconsistent with the fairy tale that she consented to the acts.  She should be guilty about that?


----------



## metric (14 May 2009)

this topic has had more discussion than the budget.......here AND in mainstream media. 

the sheep again, fell for the morality play.

what a joke.



.


----------



## awg (14 May 2009)

no one will ever know for sure

but i noticed the keywords " I had a boyfriend "

I am sure that he asked for an explanation of what happened at the time!

apparently the new thing for young gangbangers & spitroasters is to use their mobile phone to film the girl giving her consent first.

I wonder if Dave Gallop will find that acceptable


----------



## Calliope (14 May 2009)

The partners of group sex addicts have good reason to be concerned. The chances of a player bringing home an STD infection are multiplied by the number of participants in the orgy. Still, they must have known the risks when they took them on.


----------



## scanspeak (14 May 2009)

How would people feel if she was a 39 year old woman?

How would people feel if it was her and just 2 guys?

How would people feel if it was found that the group sex was her idea?


----------



## bunyip (14 May 2009)

One of the woman's former workmates was just on TV telling of how the woman was skiting about the incident for a week after it happened. 

You'd have to suspect that it's a case of a grubby little tart who drops her pants for the boys, now bungs on a bit of an act because she sees the opportunity of selling her story and making some money.

Equally grubby are the low-life blokes who accommodated her, particularly Johns who was married at the time. His wife should have given him his marching orders and found herself a decent bloke who would treat her with respect.

And for anyone who thinks women don't behave like that, believe me, some of them do. 
I've seen a woman srtip off at a party and offer to take on the boys, except that she was well known around town and nobody was willing to accept her offer and run the risk of cathing an STD.


----------



## Luthien (14 May 2009)

scanspeak said:


> How would people feel if she was a 39 year old woman?
> 
> How would people feel if it was her and just 2 guys?
> 
> How would people feel if it was found that the group sex was her idea?



How would people feel if instead of 12 Rugby League Players it was 12 Muslim men?


----------



## disarray (14 May 2009)

metric said:


> this topic has had more discussion than the budget.......here AND in mainstream media.
> 
> the sheep again, fell for the morality play.
> 
> what a joke.




yeah sometimes i wonder if we are worth saving. why worry about important things and try to make a difference when most people are too fking stupid and lazy to pay attention to whats going on around them? 

it's like living in a nation wide darwin award.



			
				Luthien said:
			
		

> How would people feel if instead of 12 Rugby League Players it was 12 Muslim men?




depends if it was consensual or not


----------



## Prospector (14 May 2009)

scanspeak said:


> How would people feel if she was a 39 year old woman?
> How would people feel if it was her and just 2 guys?
> How would people feel if it was found that the group sex was her idea?




It wasn't any of those scenarios so the questions are rather pointless.  Were the guys coming through the bathroom window her idea too?


----------



## MrBurns (14 May 2009)

disarray said:


> yeah sometimes i wonder if we are worth saving. why worry about important things and try to make a difference when most people are too fking stupid and lazy to pay attention to whats going on around them?
> 
> it's like living in a nation wide darwin award.




Just belch, fart, have another tinnie and whatever you do dont clean your teeth. Welcome to Australia.


----------



## moXJO (14 May 2009)

> A FORMER work colleague of the woman at the centre of the Cronulla Sharks sex scandal involving Matthew Johns claims her co-worker bragged about the incident.
> Tania Boyd has told the Nine Network that the woman in the ABC's Four Corners report, identified as "Clare'', had boasted to her workmates about bedding several players and only contacted police five days after the alleged incident.
> 
> "She was absolutely excited about the fact. She was bragging about it to the staff and quite willing, openly saying how she had sex with several players,'' said Ms Boyd.
> ...




http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25482240-29277,00.html

So far everyone is just speculating what has happened. Probably better to let the story play out. Does not change the fact players cheated on wives. Or that an almost all male gang bang is a little Mo in my thinking


----------



## Luthien (14 May 2009)

climbing thru windows and hiding in closets....
http://www.smh.com.au/national/group-sex-and-bunning-its-all-greek-to-me-20090514-b42g.html?page=1

the culture is absurd......



> this topic has had more discussion than the budget.......here AND in mainstream media.




.…the cartoonists would have had a field day if it had been 12 politicians


----------



## Julia (14 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> You seem to have mis-read my post. Can't you see I have recanted? This girl obviously seduced the guys.



Rubbish.  Your post was perfectly clearly sarcastic.  Could I again ask you the question?   Do you find it incomprehensible that any woman might be attracted to the idea of group sex and be prepared to engage therein if the opportunity presented itself?





Duckman#72 said:


> I can imagine that in your world Pappon, there is only right or wrong, black and white, yes and no. Unfortunately, here on Earth, there are many degrees of grey.
> 
> You posted the above comment as an attack on the girl involved. It could very easily be said about Matty Johns. Stop blaming others for where you find yourself. Can you see the shades of grey?
> 
> ...



Duckman, you are one of my very favourite people, but with respect, your original condemnation of Wabbitt's quite objective post indicated that your own view was very black and white, i.e. white re the girl and very, very black re the blokes.  My apologies if I have misunderstood you.  I know you to usually be very fair minded.





Prospector said:


> I have just watched the ABC programme after having read this post.  It seems that the girl has come forward to the ABC, or at least was prepared to talk publically now, because she is at the 'Angry' stage of the grief cycle - she wants the wives and girlfriends to know what their men are capable of.



In other words she wants revenge.




> You guys who say the girls are asking for it by getting drunk and wearing sexy clothes.



Did they?  I must have missed that.



> Ask yourself this:
> 
> If a girl is drunk and is with two guys and agrees to have sex but with one of them, not the other, but the two guys secretly tag each other, and she has sex unkowingly with both, is that rape?



She went with both of them to the hotel room, Prospector.  Would you do that if you were intending to have sex with just one of them?  What did she imagine the other one was going to do?

I'm feeling disloyal to the sisterhood by not agreeing with all you say, Prospector, especially as I know you well and can't think of any other area where we disagree.  And I don't necessarily disagree.  I just feel that none of us actually knows what happened and we can't be sure the girl was a victim here.









metric said:


> for instance...you still dont know who australia is borrowing all this money from, do you....!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Metric, I have posted an answer to your above question in the Budget highlights thread courtesy Money Morning.


----------



## cordelia (14 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> From what I understand she did not consent to have sex with all of those players and Johns knew that.





clearly you dont understand much because it was on national tv that she consented!.....


----------



## Calliope (14 May 2009)

Surely if group sex is a team building exercise, it would make more sense if the guys had group sex with each other rather than let groupies, with whom they have nothing in common, join in the fun.


----------



## Julia (14 May 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> wonders if it was the ladies team mauling some young man if there would be the same reaction



Yes, indeed.  Or what reaction would everyone have had if the footy team had decided to have it off with a homosexual male?   Would he also have automatically been a victim, or could he have been a willing participant?
Would such an event have provoked the same level of outrage that a tearful young woman has done?



metric said:


> no. just like female teachers get off for molesting boys...
> 
> 
> .



Not true at all.  Several teachers have been charged for just such offences.



Prospector said:


> I do, the other people involved, some being club officials, are pretty gutless.  But maybe they dont get that what they have done is wrong.
> 
> But sometimes in life it is not the things you might do illegally that get you unstuck, but the things you do that are morally wrong.  Especially, as in this case, he has been used as a mentor to younger players.  It is desperately sad for his wife and children; but she has chosen to stay with him - I dont think I could even bear to look at him again knowing what he did - and maybe whatever else has happened.



Ah, but who is to know what their relationship consists of?   They may have a so called 'open marriage', not as uncommon as you may imagine.

Earlier in the thread when I indicated some sympathy for Mrs Johns, Calliope quickly informed me she would have been well aware of what she was marrying.  He may well be right.  I don't know.  None of us know.

But for sure, it's just horrible for his children.  

When you say what he has done is morally wrong, do you mean in terms of his being married, or in terms of his having had group sex?

If the latter, then I'd say that none of us have the right to be the moral guardians of anyone else unless it's to prevent harm being done to someone who is unable to look out for themselves, e.g. in child sexual abuse.

This whole silly affair has taken on a life of its own to the most extraordinary degree.   On a superficial level, I'd say "well, who cares what some footballer did, and likewise who cares if a woman who protests that she had a boyfriend chose to engage in an encounter with men other than said boyfriend."

But what interests me is the cultural argument which is happening in this thread, i.e. the assumption by some posters that this woman is absolutely an innocent victim, and had no responsibility in the whole matter, versus those who consider she must have been a trollope who asked for whatever she got.

I don't know which it is, don't much care, think it's probably somewhere in between these two alternatives,  but I do have concerns about the obvious double standard which seems to be applying here.  i.e. an assumption that only men can be sexual predators.  It just ain't so.



[


----------



## cordelia (14 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> It can be difficult for some men to understand the sheer power that men can have over women.  Power that translates to inability to scream, move, or do anything.  Kind of like the way animals, when dazzled by a light seem to lack the ability to move.  They simply freeze on the spot.  Particularly 19 year old women with well bulked men in their twenties - thirties.  En masse.  Add to that mix alcohol.
> 
> I understand that the ABC do not pay people they use in their stories.




I missed this one but what a beauty!!! The woman went to the hotel room of her own accord! That's the first fact! Secondly, are you suggesting that women are so weak that they can't make their own decisions in the presence of men! Hello! I think you have been reading too much Jane Austin:

Darcy Darcy..I swoon in your presence!


----------



## cordelia (14 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Surely if group sex is a team building exercise, it would make more sense if the guys had group sex with each other rather than let groupies, with whom they have nothing in common, join in the fun.




great comment!


----------



## Julia (14 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Surely if group sex is a team building exercise, it would make more sense if the guys had group sex with each other rather than let groupies, with whom they have nothing in common, join in the fun.




It's entirely likely that they do that as a warm up act.


----------



## disarray (14 May 2009)

this isn't sparta julia


----------



## Julia (14 May 2009)

disarray said:


> this isn't sparta julia



Perhaps not, Disarray.  But that's not to say our footballers don't seek to emulate certain Spartan practices.


----------



## awg (14 May 2009)

my good lady, the psychologist, reckons its all too homo-erotic.

I tell her she is maliciously overlooking the role of the female in the group sex scenario


----------



## Calliope (14 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Could I again ask you the question?   Do you find it incomprehensible that any woman might be attracted to the idea of group sex and be prepared to engage therein if the opportunity presented itself.




I have no idea. I have been out of touch for too long to have any expertise on the sexual appetites on modern young women. But in regard to the women I do know I find it highly unlikely. Kiwi women may be different.


----------



## moXJO (14 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> I have no idea. I have been out of touch for too long to have any expertise on the sexual appetites on modern young women. But in regard to the women I do know I find it highly unlikely. Kiwi women may be different.




Where the hell have you been hiding


----------



## scanspeak (14 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> I have no idea. I have been out of touch for too long to have any expertise on the sexual appetites on modern young women. But in regard to the women I do know I find it highly unlikely. Kiwi women may be different.



You really are naive Calliope.
To educate you, here's a report on the "dating" culture of todays young women.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/295808

"Dating culture is dead - instead, young New Zealand women are regularly getting drunk and cruising around in packs looking for men to have sex with.

That's one of the findings of a TVNZ Sunday investigation into the sexual behaviour of New Zealand women. The programme makers did the story after Kiwi women last year topped the Durex Sexual Wellbeing Global Survey as the world's most promiscuous."

By the way, have you ever seen the show Ladettes to Ladies?


----------



## moXJO (14 May 2009)

scanspeak said:


> You really are naive Calliope.
> To educate you, here's a report on the "dating" culture of todays young women.
> 
> http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/295808
> ...




Woot better head back home to NZ. Oh wait the wife and kids. 
Hmmm what would Matty John's do in this situation....



> The Sunday Star-Times' Being a Bloke survey last year found that 29% of the 5000 men surveyed felt they had been pressured into having sex or had had sex unwillingly.




There's a sheep joke in there somewhere


----------



## moXJO (14 May 2009)

Really if people want to engage in multiple partners it should not be frowned upon. If it’s what they like, then good for them (not related to the current thread btw). If they are sexual comfortable with themselves then women should not be made to feel like tarts when men in the same situation are hailed as studs. It is often the case women are made to feel like trash which then brings up regret. Usually by men with little self esteem and harboring their own fears. Sexually confident women are a plus in my opinion.
 However too much alcohol and consent in my mind is still a no no. Too many bad decisions are made with alcohol.

In this situation the footballers were in the wrong even with consent.


----------



## scanspeak (14 May 2009)

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3159

"...people concerned about the rights of innocent men accused of rape need to be aware of any study regarding the prevalence of false rape claims. Of note this week is a new five-year study in India that shows almost one-in-five rape claims is false:

    …in 18.3 % cases to be precise, rape is used as a weapon to malign and attempt revenge, found a group of psychologists who assist Delhi Police in investigating sexual assault allegations.

    The conclusion was drawn from 113 cases in the last five years. Anger towards the accused prompted allegations of rape in 25% of the false charges. An equal number of such cases were filed at the behest of family members. Every fifth false allegation was made by a minor `coached' to cry `rape' as an attempt to settle family scores. About 15% were situations of panic after clear consent, while the remaining 15% defied categorisation."


----------



## metric (15 May 2009)

> "..Woman at centre of Matthew Johns sex scandal bragged about exploit..." co-worker






> Tania Boyd has told the Nine Network that the woman in the ABC's Four Corners report, identified as "Clare'', had boasted to her workmates about bedding several players and only contacted police five days after the alleged incident.






> "She was absolutely excited about the fact. She was bragging about it to the staff and quite willing, openly saying how she had sex with several players,'' said Ms Boyd.
> 
> "We were quite disgusted about it. There was no trauma whatsoever.
> 
> ...




http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25477148-421,00.html

so the 'poor girl' really was a bimbo ho and got what she asked for. nothing illegal, no scandal. gutter journalism. 4 corners is crap andthe majority of the sheep are gullible....thats why they are sheep....


----------



## Calliope (15 May 2009)

scanspeak said:


> You really are naive Calliope.
> To educate you, here's a report on the "dating" culture of todays young women.




I have noticed that all your posts are an attempt to put down women. You must have had some bad experiences to make you so cynical.


----------



## Prospector (15 May 2009)

cordelia said:


> clearly you dont understand much because it was on national tv that she consented!.....



No, I watched the interview yesterday, and she consented to go back to a room with two men, and said didnt really enjoy the kiss.  She never said she consented to any sex act.  With anyone.  As for your other posts Cordelia, whether or not you are male or female, quite obviously you have never experienced the situation of being a female in a group of 12 'mates' who are drunk and out for their turn.  You know nothing of the feeling of powerlessness, vulnerability and terror that such a situation involves.  Jane Austen?  Sheesh, actually, quite the opposite; I have worked with more rape victims (whose offenders were found guilty in court, by the way) than you will have ever read about in the papers.



Julia said:


> Did they?  I must have missed that.
> I'm feeling disloyal to the sisterhood by not agreeing with all you say, Prospector, especially as I know you well and can't think of any other area where we disagree.  And I don't necessarily disagree.  I just feel that none of us actually knows what happened and we can't be sure the girl was a victim here.




And yeah, I think you may have missed a few posts that basically said she was asking for it.  

I think perhaps we are 'arguing' different concepts.  If it had been proven that the girl had been raped - perhaps there were bruises, cuts, even a witness, would you still say you disagreed with me, if every other aspect of this story was the same?  ie she had voluntarily gone to the room with two men, but was raped by four others and watched by another six?

Your argument I think is that no-one really knows what went on, and that is a totally valid point.  It happened 7 years ago and memories and recollections change.  Remember though, that while charges were not laid, she has been receiving criminal compensation money from the NZ Government all this time - the Govt never hands out money lightly - they felt there was a need for this compensation, even though charges were not laid.  And she did get an apology from him afterwards - why was that?  And why were people climbing through windows? There are enough suggestions that something bad went on in that room!  But not enough to be proven in court.

My argument is that fundamentally, regardless of whether a woman is drunk, sexily dressed, with one man or two, she is not consenting to sex. Just as a man, who is drunk, sexily dressed, with one man or two, is not consenting to sex.  And that is the bottom line.

Metric, why are you so hung up on sheep?


----------



## MrBurns (15 May 2009)

She obviously consented to sex and put up with all that because she didnt have a man to cook and clean for.

When the natural balance of male female relationships is not fully satisfied odd behaviours surface.

Now if she was happily in the kitchen or the laundry or keeping her husbands dinner warm while he had a few harmless beers with his mates all would be ok.


----------



## White_Knight (15 May 2009)

Except she wasnt "out on the piss"

She was at her workplace, in a familiar and safe environment. She invited Johns and Firman to her room.

Other players joined in later, but by all accounts (apart from hers) this wasnt a problem.

As for the general issue that "no woman would consent to this", well sad truth is they do.

I personally know a girl who gave oral sex to 2 Warriors players and got spitroasted by another 2 on one night. She has low self-esteem but is not "scarred" by the experience. Her issues run far deeper, and the incident was a symptom, not a cause, of any problems.

I think we need to look at how we are raising our young women in particular, because for people to allow themselves to be degraded like this, society is failing.


----------



## Prospector (15 May 2009)

White_Knight said:


> Except she wasnt "out on the piss"
> 
> She was at her workplace, in a familiar and safe environment. She invited Johns and Firman to her room.



 I didnt think it was her room?   I thought it was a hotel room which had been left with the windows unlocked?


----------



## scanspeak (15 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> I have noticed that all your posts are an attempt to put down women. You must have had some bad experiences to make you so cynical.





No more than the average guy Calliope. Seems you have no response to my posts showing how women lie regularly in such cases, and that this kind of sexual behaviour is not uncommon. Instead you have  resorted to attacking me personally.
I'm sick and tired of men being vilified, and women treated as paragons of virtue. Man bad/woman good permeates the media and legal system. 
Why does the media not question the culture of these women (groupies) who sexually pursue these men? Instead its all about Rugby League culture. It's always the man's fault. Women are helpless victims. Until women take responsibility for their choices, they will never be considered equals.


----------



## Prospector (15 May 2009)

scanspeak said:


> No Calliope, I'm just sick and tired of men being vilified, and women treated as paragons of virtue.
> Why does the media not question the culture of these women (groupies) who sexually pursue these men?




But it hasnt been established that this woman is a groupie.


----------



## bunyip (15 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> I have no idea. I have been out of touch for too long to have any expertise on the sexual appetites on modern young women. But in regard to the women I do know I find it highly unlikely. Kiwi women may be different.




Calliope, c'mon - you know better than that. You mightn't be an expert on the sexual appetites of modern young women - neither am I - but you and I are well aware that women, albeit a minority of women, were willingly engaging in gangbangs back when you and I were youngsters, and long before that. 

You're also aware that moral standards are declining and promiscuity is increasing in modern society - therefore increasing numbers of people, both male and female, are getting in involved sexual adventures.

So don't kid yourself that the female in question is highly unlikely to have willingly participated in what took place.
The statements from people who were her work colleagues at the time are probably the most reliable indication of all about what actually happened. And they're absolutely adamant that she bragged openly about her exploits with those footballers. 
That hardly supports her claim that she was unwilling, now does it?


----------



## awg (15 May 2009)

another thing i find a bit weird

why does everyone expect those other idiots to come out and name themselves?

To put myself in their shoes now, the only course of action would be to remain steadfast "no comment"

what could they say?

very difficult to defend the indefensible

I dont think they should make any statement that further degrades the woman.

I also question the value of an apology, if not fully sincere.

The thing is you would bring tremendous public shame on your present family

if I was yr legal advisor or manager, I would stress to you that a "no comment" policy would be much lower risk strategy

finally, I would say that Matt Johns would not be helped, nor the culprits, not even the other players not involved, or anyone i can think of..

except..

the media

ps I know their are reasons that can be advanced to fess up, just that the - outweighs the +


----------



## Calliope (15 May 2009)

Pospector,

Your summation (Post # 301) of this sordid affair is the most rational and balanced viewpoint yet to appear on this thread. Most posters' arguments are based on whom they disrespect the most, the players or the girls.

In my case I guess I am biased against the players. Some years I had a similar experience to Judd (Post # 198) when I happened to share a return flight to Brisbane with a team of victorious Bronco players;



> I used to follow Rugby League until one evening I had to fly from Sydney to Brisbane. On that flight was a "victorious" Brisbane team headed by a player known as The Little General.
> *
> Never before or since have I, and possibly the rest of the civilized passengers and crew, encountered such a group of foul mouthed, inconsiderate, cretinous, drunken Neanderthal louts of which the Little General was the most obnoxious, swaggering worst of a bad bunch.
> *
> I have not watched or concerned myself with a game of Rugby League since.




Given a choice I would much prefer to travel with a team of victorious netball players.


----------



## Calliope (15 May 2009)

scanspeak said:


> No more than the average guy Calliope. Seems you have no response to my posts showing how women lie regularly in such cases, and that this kind of sexual behaviour is not uncommon. Instead you have  resorted to attacking me personally.
> I'm sick and tired of men being vilified, and women treated as paragons of virtue. Man bad/woman good permeates the media and legal system.
> Why does the media not question the culture of these women (groupies) who sexually pursue these men? Instead its all about Rugby League culture. It's always the man's fault. Women are helpless victims. Until women take responsibility for their choices, they will never be considered equals.




So I have resorted to attacking you personally...what rubbish. I didn't even notice you until you tried to put me down for not sharing you contempt for women.

Obviously you have an axe to grind. Come clean. What is it?


----------



## Julia (15 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> But it hasnt been established that this woman is a groupie.



I'm not sure how you define a 'groupie', but if she had a boyfriend, i.e. was in a relationship with someone, what was she doing going to a hotel room with two blokes whom she didn't know, or hardly knew?

I take your point about her needing to give specific permission to each person she had sex with  and I have already made the point that her failure to say "stop", "no" or anything else could have been due to intimidation/stress/whatever, but I don't see how she is without any responsibility at all in the whole grubby situation.

I just don't go for the automatic assumption that all females are pure and innocent and all males predatory .  And what about the subsequent comments she made to her workmates?  They didn't suggest she was too unhappy about it at the time.

And that doesn't mean I'm suggesting the actions of the dumb footy players were anything other than utterly unacceptable.


----------



## Prospector (15 May 2009)

Julia said:


> I just don't go for the automatic assumption that all females are pure and innocent and all males predatory .  And what about the subsequent comments she made to her workmates?  They didn't suggest she was too unhappy about it at the time.




And neither do I.  As a mum to two young male adults, I have certainly seen a lot of behaviours from both the boys and the girls that really shocked me!  And as for alcohol consumption and drunkeness in young women, well, it wouldnt have happened in my day! :  A little might have been nice though!   And this generation of women certainly arent reticent in social situations.

It scares me that the boys can get themselves into situations where they think 'yes' but girl claims 'no'  - well down the track.  I think it scares them too!  There are so many mixed messages out there.  

And I agree, Clare certainly did give out a mixed message in this one! But cutting through all that, agreeing to go to a room with 2 men is not tacit consent to sex; and it certainly isnt tacit consent to group sex, with four other unknowns, and the voyeurs who came to watch.  Which, I guess, means that the two players she originally went with have become the suckers for the rest of them, unless they in some way, encouraged the others to join in.

The workmate - well, I would like others to come forward to corroborate that one.


----------



## cuttlefish (15 May 2009)

Julia said:


> She went with both of them to the hotel room, Prospector.  Would you do that if you were intending to have sex with just one of them?  What did she imagine the other one was going to do?
> 
> I'm feeling disloyal to the sisterhood by not agreeing with all you say, Prospector, especially as I know you well and can't think of any other area where we disagree.  And I don't necessarily disagree.  I just feel that none of us actually knows what happened and we can't be sure the girl was a victim here.




Julia I hope you don't mind me responding to some of your comments above.  My view is that these situations unfold - no clear intent necessarily exists prior to them occurring.  It's pretty likely she had the possibility of sex with one or both of them on her mind prior to going to the room (it would be naive to think otherwise) - but thats very different to the act of going to the hotel room being an implicit consent.   Consent can be given and withdrawn at any time - even during sex.  Its also entirely possible and completely reasonable for a woman to think she can go to a hotel room without having sex with either of them, or having sex with one but not the other, or thinking about having sex with one or both of them but changing her mind when she gets there.

Of course the riskier the situation the woman places herself in, the more difficult it is to determine the truth of what occurrs and miscommunication and lack of assertiveness can be a big problem as well.

I also don't dispute that there are women who enjoy group sex - clearly there are - but in general (apart from those with a very low self esteem) - they expect to be respected through the entirity of the encounter.  I'd imagine it takes a fairly assertive and confident woman to be able to engage in group sex activity and maintain this status quo throughout the event and also requires blokes that are aware that the act of a woman participating in group sex doesn't automatically make her a second class citizen that it is ok to degrade and mistreat.  A complex psychological situation that obviously has a lot of risk in it for all parties.

Its also easy to forget that at 19, a 30 year old is a world away in age difference and life experience - this could significantly affect the way the woman behaved - she may have been less likely to assert herself - or may have been trying to 'punch above her weight' in terms of experience and overplay her confidence in the situation to 'prove' herself to these guys.

Nobody that wasn't there can know the truth of what went on for this particular women - my personal opinion is that its likely what was initially an exciting adventure for her where she felt sexy and empowered morphed over the course of the interaction into a degrading experience where she felt disempowered and humiliated.  

I do also think that a much older, married man that instigates a situation like this bears a significant responsibility for the final outcome.   I also think its completely appropriate that given what has occurred that it was untenable for Johns to continue on as an 'ambassador' for a sport that is marketed as a family sport and heavily targeting women and children to come on board as supporters.  Obviously its a difficult time for Johns, and everybody makes mistakes in life.  Dealing with those mistakes and the consequences is a part of life - assuming he gets through it, he'll likely come out the other side a stronger/better person - he's also lucky that he's got good friends that are standing around to support him.


----------



## scanspeak (15 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> So I have resorted to attacking you personally...what rubbish. I didn't even notice you until you tried to put me down for not sharing you contempt for women.
> 
> Obviously you have an axe to grind. Come clean. What is it?




Quotes from Calliope:
"You must have had some bad experiences to make you so cynical. "
"Obviously you have an axe to grind. Come clean. What is it?"

What would you call the above if not attacking me?
Why don't you stick the argument in question? Her behaviour versus theirs?

You still avoid the points I raised in my previous posts, so I won't waste any more time on you. Sidetracking the argument is a common tactic for those that have no defence.


----------



## Calliope (15 May 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Its also easy to forget that at 19, a 30 year old is a world away in age difference and life experience - this could significantly affect the way the woman behaved - she may have been less likely to assert herself - or may have been trying to 'punch above her weight' in terms of experience and overplay her confidence in the situation to 'prove' herself to these guys.




Yes, and quite often these girls come from disadvantaged backgrounds or are even intellectually challenged. They are looking for acceptance and quite often don't realise that they have been degraded and hence often brag about their experiences to their peers.


----------



## Calliope (15 May 2009)

scanspeak said:


> Quotes from Calliope:
> "You must have had some bad experiences to make you so cynical. "
> "Obviously you have an axe to grind. Come clean. What is it?"
> 
> ...




Rubbish! Defence against what? You are not the first person to use a thread like this for their own agenda.

Your statement in a previous post gives a clue to what your agenda is;


> Until women take responsibility for their choices, they will never be considered equals.


----------



## scanspeak (15 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Yes, and quite often these girls come from disadvantaged backgrounds or are even intellectually challenged. They are looking for acceptance and quite often don't realise that they have been degraded and hence often brag about their experiences to their peers.




You could make the same argument for the guys, especially young rugby players who lack the maturity to deal with fame, money and adoration. 
There's zero evidence thats she's disadvantaged or intellectually challenged.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (15 May 2009)

As usual Alan Jones speaks sense:


> In the first instance, Matthew Johns, nor anybody, is answerable to the ABC or Tracey Grimshaw, no matter how much both those parties might think they have an overwhelming responsibility to secure what they think is the truth.
> .............................
> And it's not the problem now pursued by what many might call the feminazis.
> 
> ...



Source: http://www.2gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5813&Itemid=134

Where is the fair go?


----------



## moXJO (15 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Yes, and quite often these girls come from disadvantaged backgrounds or are even intellectually challenged. They are looking for acceptance and quite often don't realise that they have been degraded and hence often brag about their experiences to their peers.




This is pure utter rubbish. Not all women that are into group activities can be categorized as such. This is just as bad a generalization as all footballers are rapists.


----------



## cuttlefish (15 May 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:
			
		

> As usual Alan Jones speaks sense:




From the Alan Jones article:

_What about women's disrespect for themselves, chasing unknown men simply because they like the look of their flesh._



yeah - you'd never catch a guy degrading himself that way ... chasing after unknown women simply because they like the look of their flesh 


Alan Jones speaking sense lol ...


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (15 May 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> From the Alan Jones article:
> 
> _What about women's disrespect for themselves, chasing unknown men simply because they like the look of their flesh._
> 
> ...




Not good enough. Debate the issue without the smilie induced verbosity.


----------



## haunting (15 May 2009)

It is very simple to gauge if this group sex practice is acceptable or not - get your girl friend, your sister or your mum to stand in as a victim until "she has enough".

Then you get her to tell everyone this practice is okay and its all part of the game.


----------



## Calliope (15 May 2009)

moXJO said:


> Not all women that are into group activities can be categorized as such.




Right. I didn't say they could.


----------



## scanspeak (15 May 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> From the Alan Jones article:
> 
> _What about women's disrespect for themselves, chasing unknown men simply because they like the look of their flesh._




First time in my life I've agreed with him!


----------



## Prospector (15 May 2009)

Alan Jones is merely summarising what Matthew Johns says he said, not what the girl has said.  In which case, of course he will come to the conclusion that the girl is the protagonist and Johns is merely the victim of the media blitz.

Having said that, I do agree that no-one is accountable to the media for their actions.  Least of all Tracy Grimshaw - oh yeah, and Mike Munro.

The fact that they have different stories has never been disputed.  

But why did Johns feel the need to apologise to her afterwards? Why were people climbing through windows to get in. And why did the NZ Government consider it appropriate for her to receive Criminal Compensation assistance as a victim if she was the protagonist?


----------



## scanspeak (15 May 2009)

haunting said:


> It is very simple to gauge if this group sex practice is acceptable or not - get your girl friend, your sister or your mum to stand in as a victim until "she has enough".
> 
> Then you get her to tell everyone this practice is okay and its all part of the game.




Thats the point. It IS OK for consenting ADULTS to do whatever they please.
No laws were broken. Everyone there consented!  Her bragging to her friends proves it.

This is a feminist witchhunt.


----------



## metric (15 May 2009)

scanspeak said:


> Thats the point. It IS OK for consenting ADULTS to do whatever they please.
> No laws were broken. Everyone there consented!  Her bragging to her friends proves it.
> 
> This is a feminist witchhunt.




perfect.....except.

its a 'morality play', designed to take the sheeps mind off real issues, not a 'witchhunt.......'

call it by its right name, and you will identify it when you see it next.




.


----------



## scanspeak (15 May 2009)

Try sticking to the topic rather than engaging in semantics.


----------



## haunting (15 May 2009)

scanspeak said:


> Thats the point. It IS OK for consenting ADULTS to do whatever they please.
> No laws were broken. Everyone there consented!  Her bragging to her friends proves it.
> 
> This is a feminist witchhunt.




What about you? How do you feel when someone you care or love were to come crying to you that she has been "gangbanged"? I am not trying to get personal here but this is an issue unless one is capable of empathising and sympathising with the victim, he or she is not going to talk a lot of sense.

The only litmus test here is when someone you love tells you directly that she is hurting because of the experience. Otherwise tell us how else could anyone make you understand and accept that being bullied into having sex with a group of "packed animals" has nothing to do with consent and choice?

A rape is a rape is a rape! No law was broken does not make it all sound right. The difference between animals and men lies in this thin line we call morality.


----------



## metric (15 May 2009)

bolt nails it.....although id have prefered he wrote about the budget...?

Column - Yes does not mean yes
 241 Comments | 0 Trackbacks | Permalink Andrew Bolt Blog    
Andrew Bolt
Friday, May 15, 2009 at 07:33am  


MATTHEW Johns is out of a job because yes no longer means yes, after all. 

Seven years ago the rugby league star had group sex with a 19-year-old fan, along with at least four of his Cronulla teammates. 

But even though the woman said yes, Johns - as most of us now insist - should have said no. 

He’s learned that consent does not trump morality, whatever he’s been told by fashionable ethicists. 

That’s why he’s been dumped by Channel 9 and Melbourne Storm, and that’s also why one of those ethicists - the National Rugby League’s own gender adviser - should be sacked, too. 

I’m talking about Prof Catharine Lumby, a post-modernist of the University of NSW and author of grants-backed studies such as Why Feminists Need pr0n, who was quoted this week saying the Johns case was a “wake-up call” to other men. 

In fact, the case should be a woop-woop-woop wake-up to Lumby, who for years seems to have told NRL players there’s nothing wrong with precisely what has now cost Johns his job. 

Hear it from Lumby herself, in an interview she gave in 2004, when the NRL first took her on as its gender adviser. 



ABC reporter: There have been stories of a culture of group sex in rugby league. What do you think of group sex? Do you think it’s OK if it’s consensual? 

Lumby: Speaking as an academic, I think that there’s no problem with any behaviour which is consensual in sexual terms. That was Lumby’s doctrine - what adults did to each other even in the most crowded of beds was fine as long as all agreed to it. 

And as long as the players showed “respect” to the groupie as she tottered out afterwards. As if. 

So when six Canterbury players were accused in 2004 of pack sex with a young woman (no charges were actually laid) and the media was agog at lurid stories of other NRL team-bonding gang bangs, Lumby urged us to chill with our silly “moral panic”. 

“The idea that group sex is abhorrent is a very particular view,” she sniffed. 

“What matters is that we avoid asserting moral beliefs as moral truths.” 

And what mattered most of all was that the players simply got their groupies to agree to whatever was being done to them. 

As the $1 million Playing by the Rules Project that Lumby and her team developed for the NRL proclaimed, all that players really needed was “ongoing education about how to negotiate sexual encounters in a way which ensures informed consent is always obtained”. Never mind what was actually being consented to. 

This kind of teaching did actually work, you may be surprised to know, but not in a way even Lumby would like. 

The ABC’s Four Corners program on Monday tracked down Charmyne Palavi, who collects footballer lovers. One NRL player had shown her a film he’d taken on his phone. 

Said Palavi: “He goes, ‘we picked up this one girl and there was like seven of us on her and everything’ . . . and he goes ‘we just filmed her to say that she consented to it’.” 

All good, then, right? 

Wrong, of course, yet how often this “consent” furphy is used to dodge uncomfortable debates on morality. 

Take the excuses made last year for not damning Melbourne photographer Bill Henson for stripping and taking soft-pr0n pictures of a 13-year-old girl, posed moodily with her breasts exposed. 

But she’d agreed, Henson’s many defenders protested. She’d consented, the girl’s giddy parents insisted. So what’s the problem? 

The problem is that trusting to consent means - for a start - trusting that people are smart enough and strong enough to work out all by their uncertain selves what’s good for them. 

In the Johns case, it’s now clear that the 19-year-old woman was neither that smart nor that strong. 

Five days after the sex, she went to New Zealand police to complain of assault, bitterly regretting what had happened. 

Despite interviewing about 80 witnesses, the police found no proof that any of the men who’d had sex with her over those two hours had had it against her will. All said she was willing. Johns said she’d literally asked for sex. 

Even now, Det Inspector David Long, in charge of the case, says: “I’m completely satisfied that we got full and truthful accounts at the time and that no crime was committed.” 

Nor does the woman herself claim she told the men to stop. At most, she’s said she was “in shock” and “they used a lot of like mental power over me”. 

I don’t doubt that she did feel powerless, or at least intimidated and on show, and if she was indeed smart enough to work out at the time that the sex was wrong, she was not strong enough to insist. 

Yet even though she consented to the sex - or didn’t object - the woman was still left feeling so “useless”, so “worthless” and so “really small” that her life collapsed. She developed a post-traumatic stress disorder and turned to drink, shut herself away, cut her wrists and still howls in shame when she talks of what happened in that bedroom. 

She can’t forgive Johns and the other men: “If I had a gun I’d shoot them right now. I hate them, they’re disgusting . . . “ she said. 

But bad judgment is not the only problem with insisting only on “consent”, not morality. 

Consent also means it’s every man for himself. That you can do whatever you can force some silly or intimidated woman to agree to, however much it will hurt them. 

If this teenager consented to group sex, there was nothing more for Johns and his mates to know. Indeed, none seemed to think they had a duty to protect this young woman from what degraded them all. 

She agreed. End of questions.  But it hasn’t been the end of the regretting. 

That’s what Lumby’s fashionable morality never factored in - the weakness and stupidity of people. Their impulsiveness. Inexperience. The way their judgment gets washed away by booze, or lost in the crowd. 

For a Lumby, even a young NRL buck in a bedroom with a naked girl and his mates is a perfectly rational moral agent. And the girl, too. 

For a Lumby, the idea that such flighty people be handed moral rules worked out over centuries of collective mistakes and regrets is almost an insult - a crime against freedom. 

“Morality is a blueprint for living that someone hands to you,” she’s tut-tutted. But “ethics is a zone we all enter when we find ourselves, by choice or necessity, negotiating those rules”. 

Negotiating, in this case, until someone says “yes” to group sex. 

Well, a girl in Christchurch did say “yes” when morality would have shouted thathe say “no”. 

See her crying now. See Johns weeping, too, on A Current Affair, having heard the “yes” that a Lumby once swore was all he’d need to keep him safe. 

How could he have ever believed something so amoral? And how could Lumby ever have seemed to teach it?


----------



## Knobby22 (15 May 2009)

Great article. Thanks metric.


----------



## Agentm (15 May 2009)

great article metric

my view on her is to have the media go after her for these double standards

johns is guilty of no crime, he is absolutely full of one thing imho,  stupidity..

to think that group sex incidents involving high profile people can be kept secret is indeed a very peculiar thought pattern.

the problem i have with this story is the minimizing of the girls current  emotional state. you have to accept that people can be traumatised by this activity, and i dont think johns has actually said anywhere that he thought is unlikely she could have been traumatised by it, and if she was then it may not be entirely the fault of the guys involved, but more a case of the lady involved having made a stupid decision at a young age..  i know there are people claiming she spoke about it and perhaps bragged about it, but none the less that doesnt necessarily mean the event had not traumatised her.

the story doesnt rate for me, its not news worthy, the best place for the victim is not to be in the middle of a media frenzy, but in a room with a professional councilor,  the media are hardly going to look after her condition.

it could be far better for the group itwself to take responsibility for its actions and as a group express remorse and indeed express their view on whether they thought now in hindsight whether what they did could traumatise someone.. it would have been a far better outcome and people could have accepted their decisions earlier as mistakes and see they were remorseful,,

but to have only one person made responsible, and to hide the group makes the victims situation worse, it almost says they are not prepared to admit that something that night might have been traumatic..

imho its a disaster for the lady and a poorly handled considering whats at stake..


----------



## truevalue (15 May 2009)

Hi Metric,

I suppose the thing that jumps out at me is from that article is the question about: Why did the girl wish she said no? It appears (?) clear that she said yes at the time but then afterwards, for whatever reason, she wished she had said no. It seems obvious that any rational friend of hers would have talked her out of any of it before hand (for good reasons), but perhaps she felt that by performing the act she would receive something above and beyond what she got (nothing). Did she hate those guys because she felt cheated out of her reward? Did she hate them because she felt there was an implied promise from the players beforehand? Or is that all crap and she was angry because she consented to have ex with Johns but not the others and felt she couldn't say no.

Either way should Johns have protected her? Should he have questioned her motives beforehand? Did he morally owe her a duty of care? My view is probably.


----------



## scanspeak (15 May 2009)

haunting said:


> What about you? How do you feel when someone you care or love were to come crying to you that she has been "gangbanged"? I am not trying to get personal here but this is an issue unless one is capable of empathising and sympathising with the victim, he or she is not going to talk a lot of sense.
> 
> The only litmus test here is when someone you love tells you directly that she is hurting because of the experience. Otherwise tell us how else could anyone make you understand and accept that being bullied into having sex with a group of "packed animals" has nothing to do with consent and choice?
> 
> A rape is a rape is a rape! No law was broken does not make it all sound right. The difference between animals and men lies in this thin line we call morality.




Fair enough. I would offer sympathy and hope that they learned a valuable life lesson. Play with fire and you get burnt. 
But I certainly wouldnt be helping them seek vengeance.


----------



## Prospector (15 May 2009)

Interesting article.  All the people involved are a bit tawdry really, aren't they.   

The readers comments are interesting too.  This one was quite clever:

_The basic premise that Lumby is somehow to blame for Johns’ and Co action is factually wrong - the incident occurred in 2002, Lumby was hired in 2004. In what other forum would someone be blamed for something that took place 2 years prior to their starting?_

And that this was the payback for Channel 9 getting stuck into the ABC Correspondent on drug charges in Singapore.

I dont think the media should go after her Agentm - nothing in that article really asserts that she was anything less than out of control of the situation.  And she has paid for 7 years in personal torment.

I wonder how many more similar stories there are out there, just bubbling away until someone decides to speak.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2009)

One of the most tawdry moments from the 60 minutes clip was Fatty Vautin putting his arm about John's shoulder as if in commiseration for his plight.

Vautin has done nothing but spill on the NQ Cowboys for many years even though his father was reputed to be a North Queenslander.

Fatty needs to be removed from Ch 9.

His endorsement of rape by his matey embrace was disgusting.

He is a biased commentator who is loathed in North Queensland, one of the few places that our players can behave like gentlemen.

So lets get rid of Fatty.

He could always go back to Bowen and get a job in the bottleo.


gg


----------



## cuttlefish (15 May 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Not good enough. Debate the issue without the smilie induced verbosity.




I've offered a lot more in the way of debate than you have snake if you look back through the thread.  I've made quite a few comments about my thoughts on the situation - all you have done is parrot 'The Parrot' - you've placed a link to an article with no comment of your own.   I've pointed out a massive inconsistency in "Mr" Jones' argument imo.  Debate on my comment is more than welcome.


----------



## bunyip (15 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> One of the most tawdry moments from the 60 minutes clip was Fatty Vautin putting his arm about John's shoulder as if in commiseration for his plight.
> 
> Vautin has done nothing but spill on the NQ Cowboys for many years even though his father was reputed to be a North Queenslander.
> 
> ...




The whole damn Footy Show needs to be removed from Ch. 9, not just Fatty. 
I wouldn't watch it if you paid me - it's pathetic.


----------



## cuttlefish (15 May 2009)

I think its commendable that Fatty and Gould would support their mate.  I mean all he's done is go out as a 30 year old married man, convinced a naive 19 year old to come back and have sex with him and his mate, and then let the rest of the team in for a go.  Its just tragic.  Brings a tear to my eye as well.  Life is so tough as a professional celebrity,  its just so hard to tread that fine line between right and wrong.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2009)

Agree , Fatty Vautin wouldn't be game to travel north of the Don River bridge at Bowen without some heavies from Ch9 with him.

He is hated by all North Queenslanders bar none for his bastardisation of a young Cowboys Team in their formative years.

His mately caress of Johns on the Footy Show is the closest you can come to live ARL pr0n on TV.

gg


----------



## moXJO (15 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree , Fatty Vautin wouldn't be game to travel north of the Don River bridge at Bowen without some heavies from Ch9 with him.
> 
> He is hated by all North Queenslanders bar none for his bastardisation of a young Cowboys Team in their formative years.
> 
> ...




Didn't the cowboys tell Wayne Bennett he was to old and past it to coach them so he went to st george. Cowboys deserve every thing they get


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2009)

moXJO said:


> Didn't the cowboys tell Wayne Bennett he was to old and past it to coach them so he went to st george. Cowboys deserve every thing they get




The truth always hurts.

Within 3 years the Cowboys will be premiers.

gg


----------



## moXJO (15 May 2009)

I know the rumors about Thurston as well gg good player though. At least cowboys can be an exciting team to watch.


----------



## Stan 101 (15 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> He is hated by all North Queenslanders bar none for his bastardisation of a young Cowboys Team in their formative years.
> 
> gg




Speak for yourself. My feelings of him are neutral. Neutral or positive would be relatively high, imho.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2009)

Stan 101 said:


> Speak for yourself. My feelings of him are neutral. Neutral or positive would be relatively high, imho.




Speak to anyone north of Sarina and listen.

He dumped on the Cowboys when they were a young team doing the hard yards.

When they got within cooeeof the finals he slunk into Townsville and did a Footy Show.

He's a grub.
A Grub.

Ask anyone in North Queensland.

gg


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Speak to anyone north of Sarina and listen.
> 
> He dumped on the Cowboys when they were a young team doing the hard yards.
> 
> ...




sorry for context this is about 

Fatty Vautin

The Grub.

gg


----------



## Julia (15 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Yes, and quite often these girls come from disadvantaged backgrounds or are even intellectually challenged. They are looking for acceptance and quite often don't realise that they have been degraded and hence often brag about their experiences to their peers.






scanspeak said:


> You could make the same argument for the guys, especially young rugby players who lack the maturity to deal with fame, money and adoration.
> There's zero evidence thats she's disadvantaged or intellectually challenged.



Scanspeak, you have appropriately answered Calliope on this.
I recall a particular instance where the daughter of friends engaged in many years of flagrant promiscuity with multiple partners, individually and with groups.  She had an IQ of around 140, had received an excellent education, had a really decent home life, four siblings with no such behaviour.  
So no disadvantage there.





moXJO said:


> This is pure utter rubbish. Not all women that are into group activities can be categorized as such. This is just as bad a generalization as all footballers are rapists.



Yes.  Exactly.




haunting said:


> It is very simple to gauge if this group sex practice is acceptable or not - get your girl friend, your sister or your mum to stand in as a victim until "she has enough".
> 
> Then you get her to tell everyone this practice is okay and its all part of the game.



Huh?   What a bizarre suggestion which would prove absolutely nothing except a disrespect for your girlfriend, sister or mother.Persuading someone to do something completely out of character is meaningless.






truevalue said:


> Hi Metric,
> 
> I suppose the thing that jumps out at me is from that article is the question about: Why did the girl wish she said no? It appears (?) clear that she said yes at the time but then afterwards, for whatever reason, she wished she had said no. It seems obvious that any rational friend of hers would have talked her out of any of it before hand (for good reasons), but perhaps she felt that by performing the act she would receive something above and beyond what she got (nothing). Did she hate those guys because she felt cheated out of her reward? Did she hate them because she felt there was an implied promise from the players beforehand?



Ah, now this is probably an insightful suggestion.  She may indeed have equated sex with affection, even an ongoing liaison, and the realisation that it was nothing of the kind for the blokes left her feeling very let down.

Perhaps it's some sort of fantasy along these lines which encourages groupies to offer themselves to so called celebrities.   A fanciful daydream in which the football prince suddenly realises he has found the real love of his life.  Hard to believe any girl should be so deluded, though.


----------



## Julia (15 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> . And why did the NZ Government consider it appropriate for her to receive Criminal Compensation assistance as a victim if she was the protagonist?



Prospector, she apparently received a payment from the Accident Compensation Commission in NZ.   This doesn't have any implication or inference of criminality.   The ACC is a body which awards payments to individuals on the basis of assessed physical or psychological damage from whatever cause.

e.g. if your husband's recent fall over a kerb had occurred in NZ his treatment would have been paid for by the ACC, some allowance paid in account of his being unable to work for whatever period, and there would be no question of anyone being sued.  (not that I'm suggesting you would be doing this.).

It's like an extension of our Medicare and I wish it could be adopted here.
Everyone in NZ pays a levy just as we do with Medicare, no one sues anyone, and no one is disadvantaged if they have an accident or misadventure which renders them temporarily or permanently incapacitated.

According to what I've been able to find out, this girl was assessed by a psychiatrist to have a psychological problem - whether it stemmed from the Johns affair I don't know - and she was given a payment because she was deemed unfit to be able to work.


----------



## Julia (15 May 2009)

metric said:


> bolt nails it.....although id have prefered he wrote about the budget...?
> 
> Column - Yes does not mean yes
> 241 Comments | 0 Trackbacks | Permalink Andrew Bolt Blog
> ...



Thanks Metric.  Good article from Andrew Bolt.

Catherine Lumby is a disappointing example of female academics.
















Agentm said:


> , the best place for the victim is not to be in the middle of a media frenzy, but in a room with a professional councilor,



Exactly right.  This is part of what I don't get.  Her only motive in bringing up this unpleasant and grubby episode seven years later appears to be to exact revenge on the players. Doesn't seem as though she has matured much in seven years.


----------



## Prospector (15 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Prospector, she apparently received a payment from the Accident Compensation Commission in NZ.   This doesn't have any implication or inference of criminality.   The ACC is a body which awards payments to individuals on the basis of assessed physical or psychological damage from whatever cause.
> 
> e.g. if your husband's recent fall over a kerb had occurred in NZ his treatment would have been paid for by the ACC, some allowance paid in account of his being unable to work for whatever period, and there would be no question of anyone being sued..




Gosh that sounds like a good scheme then. Fair enough. I thought it was like our Victims compensation scheme. Thanks for clarifying Julia.


----------



## cuttlefish (15 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Exactly right.  This is part of what I don't get.  Her only motive in bringing up this unpleasant and grubby episode seven years later appears to be to exact revenge on the players. Doesn't seem as though she has matured much in seven years.




Give her another four years and she'll be nearly as mature as the bloke that lured her into the situation in the first place.  (30 - 19 ... ).


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Thanks Metric.  Good article from Andrew Bolt.
> 
> Catherine Lumby is a disappointing example of female academics.
> 
> ...






cuttlefish said:


> Give her another four years and she'll be nearly as mature as the bloke that lured her into the situation in the first place.  (30 - 19 ... ).






I don't know what sexual planet you guys come from.

I agree with one having a root wherever you can find another individual who wants the same.

However I fail to see how you guys and gals can condone sex between a footy team and officials , up to 11 of them I believe and a 19 year old girl,

It sounds suss to me.

Sex is precious, personal, loving, aggresive and non agressive and has elements of consensuality ad non consensuality. A bargain is made and all is right.

These dickheads were just that , dickheads, ignoring consensuality, probity and dignity, and need to be exposed.

They may as well have been rooting a blowup doll.

gg


----------



## So_Cynical (16 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> However I fail to see how you guys and gals can condone sex between a footy team and officials , up to 11 of them I believe and a 19 year old girl,
> 
> It sounds suss to me.
> 
> Sex is precious, personal, loving, aggresive and non agressive and has elements of consensuality ad non consensuality. A bargain is made and all is right




I once met a 19 year old prostitute in Canberra...upon questioning her about her 
employment choices, i was told she needed 400 a week to live and pay for her 
university study's and it was either the ***** house for 6 hours every Wednesday 
nite or 30 hours a week at McDonald's.

She choose the ***** house and 5/6 clients a nite...over endless happy meals.


----------



## Stan 101 (16 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Speak to anyone north of Sarina and listen.
> 
> 
> Ask anyone in North Queensland.
> ...




I am in North Qld, and have been talking to a plethora of people regarding football in general this week, including people from Sarina. Who would have thought.  Matt Johns and the Footy show hosts were hot topics, hence my previous post. 

Your comments are simply incorrect and exaggerated on this subject.

cheers,


----------



## freddy2 (16 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> But it hasnt been established that this woman is a groupie.




John Butterfield (pictured) was the owner of the Racecourse Hotel in February 2002, and says the woman boasted to colleagues about having sex with two local rugby players, just hours before the group sex session that has rocked the NRL.

He says the woman, who was identified only as 'Clare' in an edition of the ABC's Four Corners programme, told work mates she'd had sex with two rugby players in a nightclub toilet the night before.

"She gloated to staff members about the great night she's had and the way she got them in the men's toilet and had a bit of fun with them," Mr Butterfield told 7News.

He added that she bragged about her involvement in both incidents for at least four days.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5570830/group-sex-woman-other-players


----------



## Calliope (16 May 2009)

In view of the mounting evidence against the moral character of the Kiwi girl, it now seems obvious that it was her stupid behaviour that triggered the sequence of disgusting events that followed on that night.

I now concede gloating rights to those who have been critical of her claim to "victim" status, and critical of me for my "naivety" in accepting this argument, even though some of the attacks against me were based on a deliberate misinterpretation of what I actually said.


----------



## white_goodman (16 May 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> I once met a 19 year old prostitute in Canberra...upon questioning her about her
> employment choices, i was told she needed 400 a week to live and pay for her
> university study's and it was either the ***** house for 6 hours every Wednesday
> nite or 30 hours a week at McDonald's.
> ...




theres no tread on those tyres anymore lol


----------



## bunyip (16 May 2009)

Rugby League players are generally a low-life mob who prove it with their behaviour on and off the field. 
Apart from their well documented sexual indiscretions, they're generally foul mouthed, roughly spoken, and prone to rambunctious behaviour.
The sheilas who swoon over these blokes are not exactly ladylike and are probably of a similar standard to the blokes they idolise. Maybe they deserve each other.

Different story with Rugby Union players.....they're generally a far better type of bloke and are from far better backgrounds than League players. It shows in their behaviour both on and off the field. 
Of course, it goes without saying that not every Union player is a saint and not every League player is a scumbag. But generally, the blokes who comprise one camp are vastly different in character and behaviour to the blokes who comprise the opposing camp.

Australian Rugby Union has recruited a number of League players over the years. I note that a high percentage of these former League players end up running off the rails and engaging in behaviour that brings the game of Rugby Union into disrepute. Some examples who spring to mind are Wendell Sailor, Lotte Tiquiri, Matt Rogers and Andrew Walker.

If I was a Rugby Union official I'd be very reluctant to recruit any League player into Rugby Union ranks.


----------



## Prospector (16 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> In view of the mounting evidence against the moral character of the Kiwi girl, it now seems obvious that it was her stupid behaviour that triggered the sequence of disgusting events that followed on that night.
> 
> I now concede gloating rights to those who have been critical of her claim to "victim" status, and critical of me for my "naivety" in accepting this argument, even though some of the attacks against me were based on a deliberate misinterpretation of what I actually said  .




Yes, her behaviour and morals certainly are in question now, as are the ABC's quality of presenting the facts.  It doesnt release Johns from the morality of a 30 year old family man, who is a mentor to younger players and appointed League spokesperson, to be publically about his behaviour.  The parents of the junior players with whom he comes in contact with do need to know about the culture/values of the people to whom they are releasing their offspring. 

To present a more rounded version of the events, the ABC should have done a more indepth review of how young girls behave around these men.

I do believe that things escalated way beyond where she imagined they would go; assuming she consented to sex with two of them still does not mean she consented to sex with the pack.  But the waters are far too muddy now to work out even that.


----------



## bunyip (16 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> In view of the mounting evidence against the moral character of the Kiwi girl, it now seems obvious that it was her stupid behaviour that triggered the sequence of disgusting events that followed on that night.
> 
> I now concede gloating rights to those who have been critical of her claim to "victim" status, and critical of me for my "naivety" in accepting this argument, even though some of the attacks against me were based on a deliberate misinterpretation of what I actually said.




Well I won't exercise any gloating rights over you, Calliope. I'll simply say that your changed outlook on this incident has restored my opinion that you're a person who shows a commendable degree of common sense in your views.


----------



## Calliope (16 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Rugby League players are generally a low-life mob who prove it with their behaviour on and off the field.
> Apart from their well documented sexual indiscretions, they're generally foul mouthed, roughly spoken, and prone to rambunctious behaviour.
> The sheilas who swoon over these blokes are not exactly ladylike and are probably of a similar standard to the blokes they idolise. Maybe they deserve each other.
> 
> ...




As I said in a previous post lower moral and ethical standards can often be linked to impaired intellect or a disadvantaged background.

And, Bunyip, I do not include you among my detractors. I continue to be impressed by your rational arguments. The same goes for Prospector who has never deviated from a fair and balanced assessment.


----------



## Julia (16 May 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Give her another four years and she'll be nearly as mature as the bloke that lured her into the situation in the first place.  (30 - 19 ... ).



Cuttlefish, it does seem a little unclear as to who did the luring.
And this is essentially all I've ever said.   i.e. that we were not in a position to know what happened.  Now it seems from what the owner of the hotel has said, that she was hardly an innocent victim.  Doesn't excuse one iota the behaviour of the blokes.




So_Cynical said:


> I once met a 19 year old prostitute in Canberra...upon questioning her about her
> employment choices, i was told she needed 400 a week to live and pay for her
> university study's and it was either the ***** house for 6 hours every Wednesday
> nite or 30 hours a week at McDonald's.
> ...



It's not just the financial rewards which attract women to prostitution.
A couple of years ago I read a book which was the result of a study by researchers at one of the universities into the lives of "high class call girls".
This term differentiates these women from prostitutes who work the streets or brothels.

They were on average older (25 to late 30's), and it was their sole income.
They mostly worked out of a separate apartment but a couple worked from their own home.  Many of the clients were repeat business and some had become friends, the women said.

When asked by the researchers about their motives for choosing such a career (and they did regard it as a career) only a couple out of I think 20 said it was just for the money and they did not actually enjoy the encounters.

Some liked the independence, autonomy and capacity to set their own hours, and some worked while their children were in school.

However, there were several who said quite frankly that they just really liked sex and thought it was a bonus that they could be so well paid for doing what they enjoyed.

I can't remember the actual incomes now but they were all very high.

I'd have thought personal safety would have been a worry if they are working alone, often being with men they don't know, but not one of them reported any aggression or problems with clients.

So perhaps it's just quite incorrect to assume that if a woman wants to have sex with multiple men, it must be against her will.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 May 2009)

Perhaps if Matthew Johns had read some Shakespeare in his youth he may not have ended up in the pickle he is now in.

This , on lust and regret.

gg



Sonnet CXXIX, by William Shakespeare

    The expense of spirit in a waste of shame
    Is lust in action; and till action, lust
    Is perjured, murderous, bloody, full of blame,
    Savage, extreme, rude, cruel, not to trust,

    Enjoy'd no sooner but despised straight,
    Past reason hunted, and no sooner had
    Past reason hated, as a swallow'd bait
    On purpose laid to make the taker mad;

    Mad in pursuit and in possession so;
    Had, having, and in quest to have, extreme;
    A bliss in proof, and proved, a very woe;
    Before, a joy proposed; behind, a dream.

    All this the world well knows; yet none knows well
    To shun the heaven that leads men to this hell.


----------



## haunting (16 May 2009)

There is some kind of twisted logic being presented by the Rugby league fraternity and its supporters in condoning such gang-rape behaviour in some of its players. Explanation like "this is what men do...etc" as in the video link, or "that" 19 yo girl has been gloating for days before the incident. Whilst it seems quite unforgivable for a 19 yo girl to behave that way but it's quite okay for a group of grown men to gang up on a single woman against her will.

For those who are condoning this behaviour, they should question their standard of morality, or alternatively, question the level of hypocrisy they are showing behind their arguments.


----------



## bunyip (16 May 2009)

I played in an Under 19 Rugby Union team for a couple of years after leaving the school where I played Rugby Union.
Our Union club had just two teams, Under 19 and open. Our open team was comprised of gun players who had all played in the First 15 at school, many of whom were currently Queensland Country representative players.
Once I reached the open age division, I knew that as someone who had just turned 19 I had little hope of forcing my way into the open team against such tough opposition from quality players who had four or five years on me in age and experience.
If I'd kept playing Union I would have spent much of my time sitting on the bench as a reserve, rather than on the field playing. 
That situation was unacceptable to me, so I decided to play League for a year or two....at least the local League club had both A and a B teams that gave everyone a chance to be active players regardless of age or experience or ability.

I got one hell of a shock when I started playing League. In one season I copped more punches in the mouth, more elbows to the head, more kicks in the ribs, more head high tackles, than I'd copped in several years of playing Union.
After a game of Union it was pretty common to find ourselves at the same pub as the team we'd just played. No problem - the blokes from the two teams would intermingle freely, have a beer together, enjoy each others company.
Not so with League....bumping into the opposing team at the pub was a recipe for a fight to start.
Women....I won't even begin to describe the differences between League and Union players in their level of respect and their general attitude towards females.

All in all I was pretty disgusted with League players for their lack of sportsmanship, their dirty and cowardly play, and their grubby standards both on and off the field. 
I put in just one season playing League, and even that was a struggle. I didn't enjoy the game and didn't think much of the blokes who played it, including my own team mates.
I returned to Rugby Union to be among men rather than louts.


----------



## Prospector (16 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> I got one hell of a shock when I started playing League. In one season I copped more punches in the mouth, more elbows to the head, more kicks in the ribs, more head high tackles, than I'd copped in several years of playing Union.
> .




How are the ears then Bunyip?  League players always have such 'roid' bodies too.  And their necks.

We only have Union in SA, and it is played amongst the Indendent schools mainly.  We really only get to see the State of Origin matches, but they are pretty boring really.

Haunting, I think that most if not all people on this thread have found that what happened was extremely distasteful, regardless of how the situation unfolded.  I think  even those who are expressing a degree of 'support' for Johns have mostly said it was an act of stupidity and immorality on his part.  

I cannot believe that any person would willingly consent to having multiple partners (six) for sex, as well as gang of onlookers who were apparently looking after their own needs.    Regardless of what unfolded after that.  That situation was well out of her control.


----------



## Calliope (16 May 2009)

Richard Ackland in SMH


> You'll notice the legal eggshells over which Four Corners gingerly tiptoed on Monday night. I don't think the reporter Sarah Ferguson directly asked the New Zealand woman identified as "Clare" whether she consented to one, two or five sexual encounters.
> 
> If she had answered "no", then the recognised rugby league players may well have been able to bring defamation proceedings against the ABC because an imputation of sexual assault had been raised.
> 
> As in the criminal jurisdiction, such a civil case would have been heavily stacked in their favour because on a factual basis it is her word against the insistent chorus of male voices that the whole thing was consensual. One against eight.


----------



## bunyip (16 May 2009)

haunting said:


> There is some kind of twisted logic being presented by the Rugby league fraternity and its supporters in condoning such gang-rape behaviour in some of its players. Explanation like "this is what men do...etc" as in the video link, or "that" 19 yo girl has been gloating for days before the incident. Whilst it seems quite unforgivable for a 19 yo girl to behave that way but it's quite okay for a group of grown men to gang up on a single woman against her will.
> 
> For those who are condoning this behaviour, they should question their standard of morality, or alternatively, question the level of hypocrisy they are showing behind their arguments.





The girl was apparently gloating for a week after the incident, not before it. 
I don't see that anyone who makes mention of this fact is in any way condoning the behaviour of the louts involved. (note that I've called them louts, not men).
I certainly share your view that their behaviour cannot be excused or condoned. 
Is anyone on this thread actually condoning their behaviour?

If some little bimbo drops her pants and invites the boys in for a bit of fun, it comes as no surprise that, drunken boys being drunken boys, and louts being louts, they're not going to pass up the opportunity. 
That does not in any way excuse such grubby behaviour on their part or on the part of the girl.
They were/are clearly a  bunch of sordid people who are small in character.
The worst of them all is Mathew Johns, in view of the fact that he was a married man at the time. 

People can whinge all they like about how Channel 9 was unfair in dismissing Johns.
I say good on them....they're a company that's very much in the public eye and as such, would leave themselves open to considerable criticism and negative reaction if they retained the services of any employee who was embroiled in a particularly grubby public scandal.
Matt Johns was more than just an employee of Channel 9 - he was an ambassador for the company, just as he was both an employee and an ambassador in Rugby League.
Channel 9 have quite rightly decided that he's the kind of ambassador they don't need, and they've terminated his contract accordingly. 

If the Rugby League organisation is serious about cleaning up its image, it should take a leaf out of Channel 9's book by terminating the contract of any player who in any way shows himself to be a poor ambassador for the game. 
None of this wishy washy apology for disciplinary action where they're fined or suspended for a few games and chastised for being naughty boys. 
Outline clear standards of behaviour in their contract of employment, have them sign an agreement that they will abide by these standards in their entirety, or face termination of their contract if they don't.
And then follow through on it by sacking any player who steps out of line. It's the only possible way to effectively address the behavioural problems of Rugby League players.


----------



## bunyip (16 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> How are the ears then Bunyip?  League players always have such 'roid' bodies too.  And their necks.
> 
> 
> I cannot believe that any person would willingly consent to having multiple partners (six) for sex, as well as gang of onlookers who were apparently looking after their own needs.    Regardless of what unfolded after that.  That situation was well out of her control.




Prospector.....I'm pleased to be able to report that I survived my football career without being maimed, disfigured or severely injured. 
I do have a few scars though of which I'm quite proud!


Your high moral standards possibly explain your disbelief that anyone would willingly consent to having several sex partners and a gang of onlookers. 
I can only point out that some females come from very different backgrounds to what I imagine you came from, and as such, have very different standards to yours. 
Sluttish girls are capable of almost anything. 
Give them a skinful of booze and they're _definitely_ capable of anything. 
No situation is too embarrassing or sordid or shameful for them or for the blokes who accommodate them.
Thankfully these women are in the minority, but they definitely exist.


----------



## pacestick (16 May 2009)

latest news reports from the girls family suggest they didnt know about it until the news people tracked them down. Meanwhile sje has married a high profile KIWI sportsman


----------



## Nyden (16 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> I cannot believe that any person would willingly consent to having multiple partners (six) for sex, as well as gang of onlookers *who were apparently looking after their own needs*.    Regardless of what unfolded after that.  That situation was well out of her control.





Oh, just yuck. So many disgustingly vivid pictures have been painted on this thread! The worst being White_Knight's use of the word 'spitroasted'. That will certainly haunt me for many days.

Sorry, I know I've contributed absolutely nothing, but I felt a need to express my distaste : Well, here's some contribution - they're animals, all of 'em, including the girl.


----------



## bunyip (16 May 2009)

pacestick said:


> latest news reports from the girls family suggest they didnt know about it until the news people tracked them down. Meanwhile sje has married a high profile KIWI sportsman




What a lucky bloke......he's got himself a real top notch woman there!!


----------



## Calliope (16 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Sluttish girls are capable of almost anything.
> Give them a skinful of booze and they're _definitely_ capable of anything.
> No situation is too embarrassing or sordid or shameful for them or for the blokes who accommodate them.
> Thankfully these women are in the minority, but they definitely exist.




When I first started this thread I received criticism from various posters on the grounds that...it's only boys having fun...it's a fact of life... I was a wowser...get over it etc.

One thing this episode has done is to provide a wealth of information on the sexual habits of young females in our newspapers. A few articles in the SMH today have completely re-educated me and I can understand why I attracted these criticisms. 

I learned today (among other lurid details) that girls as young as year 6 are regularly giving head to boys at parties. Nobody knows why the girls would do this (what satisfaction could they get?) except for booze and sheer bravado. It is hard to believe that their parents do not accept this practice.

You say sluttish girls are in the minority...but for how long?


----------



## bunyip (16 May 2009)

moXJO said:


> I know the rumors about Thurston as well gg good player though. At least cowboys can be an exciting team to watch.




Thurston has a bit of a shady past.
As a teenager he ran foul of the police on a number of occasions due to his involvement in petty crime and violence. 
He claims that relatives helped him turn his life around by getting him involved in Rugby League. 
Perhaps so, but he's still prone to running off the rails, as shown by his involvement in a couple of off-field incidents in Townsville that caused Cowboys officials to warn him to get his act together.
I have to wonder if he'll return to his old ways when the glory of being a League hero is over for him. I hope not.
At one stage there was talk of the Australian Rugby Union showing some interest in him. Nothing has come of it. I sincerely hope the ARU has abandoned the idea.


----------



## bunyip (16 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> You say sluttish girls are in the minority...but for how long?




How long indeed! They're on the increase as morality continues to decline, but hopefully they'll stay very much in the minority.
It's pretty clear that some of the silly little fools are losing their inhibitions when they're boozed up. 
Maybe by next morning some of them have no recollection of their behaviour from the previous night.


----------



## scanspeak (16 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> When I first started this thread I received criticism from various posters on the grounds that...it's only boys having fun...it's a fact of life... I was a wowser...get over it etc.
> 
> One thing this episode has done is to provide a wealth of information on the sexual habits of young females in our newspapers. A few articles in the SMH today have completely re-educated me and I can understand why I attracted these criticisms.
> 
> ...




Its not easy to admit you were wrong, so props to you Calliope. In a way, its a compliment and blessing that you haven't been exposed to the seedier side of life.

I hope you can now see why I have been so outspoken on this matter. Society's values are falling apart, but it's seen as too politically incorrect to criticize women. They are the untouchables, the helpless victims, and men are the easy target, especially among a left-wing, politically correct, feminist media. Until we face the complete truth, as unpalatable as it is, there's no hope of dealing effectively with these issues.

All I wanted was balance in the reporting. For every neanderthal thug out there, there's a loose tramp chasing him.


----------



## Julia (16 May 2009)

haunting said:


> There is some kind of twisted logic being presented by the Rugby league fraternity and its supporters in condoning such gang-rape behaviour in some of its players. Explanation like "this is what men do...etc" as in the video link, or "that" 19 yo girl has been gloating for days before the incident. Whilst it seems quite unforgivable for a 19 yo girl to behave that way but it's quite okay for a group of grown men to gang up on a single woman against her will.
> 
> For those who are condoning this behaviour, they should question their standard of morality, or alternatively, question the level of hypocrisy they are showing behind their arguments.



In the whole of this thread I don't recall anyone condoning the behaviour of either the players or the girl.  Some of us have simply acknowledged the reality of the fact that it happens.  And that young women - and young girls for that matter - are sometimes regularly engaged in very promiscuous behaviour.

And I haven't seen anyone being hypocritical at all.   A couple of people have adjusted their view in the wake of evidence that has come to light.

And why do you say "it's quite OK for a group of grown men to gang up on a single woman *against her will*?   It is now clear that it was far from being against her will.

And as far as 'standards of morality' are concerned, if individuals want to engage in group sex in private why is it any of our business, except that in this case the blokes were supposed to be setting some sort of example of appropriate behaviour as, um, ambassadors for football or something.

Earlier in the thread, some poster suggested it would all end in tears.  That looks very likely indeed.  Matthew Johns has been done over and has lost his job.  I expect that satisfied the girl concerned in her determination that he/they 'should pay'.   But given the recent public revelations of her own gloating over the incident, and the preceding sex in the toilets, she might just be having second thoughts about the wisdom of her ploy.



Prospector said:


> .
> 
> I cannot believe that any person would willingly consent to having multiple partners (six) for sex, as well as gang of onlookers who were apparently looking after their own needs.    Regardless of what unfolded after that.  That situation was well out of her control.



Well, Prospector, this is where we differ.   If the situation was out of her control, why did she not immediately afterwards go to the police, tell her boss if it happened on her work premises, or right then go to the media?
Why did she instead boast and gloat about it for five or six days afterwards?
Doesn't seem like the behaviour of a victimised or traumatised person to me.

You can't believe that anyone would do this.   Such behaviour is clearly unacceptable to you and to me.   But that's not to say other strata of our society don't have an entirely contrary view.  Promiscuity and exhibitionism are alive and well as far as I can tell.





Calliope said:


> When I first started this thread I received criticism from various posters on the grounds that...it's only boys having fun...it's a fact of life... I was a wowser...get over it etc.
> 
> One thing this episode has done is to provide a wealth of information on the sexual habits of young females in our newspapers. A few articles in the SMH today have completely re-educated me and I can understand why I attracted these criticisms.
> 
> ...



Calliope, I don't believe this behaviour is the norm amongst young girls.
For several years I've been part of a mentoring programme in the schools here, both high schools and primary, working with children whose behaviour is far from acceptable.   Invariably it occurs where parents have set no boundaries for the kids, so the children push and push with ever more outlandish behaviour in the (possibly subconscious) hope that someone will say "Stop".   

There are plenty of young people who are receiving good role modelling at home and who will become top citizens as adults.  

It's just that the ones we hear about are the ones that are sought out by the media.  The good kids are safely within their own families doing normal teenage stuff.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 May 2009)

My brother is a very senior manager of an AFL club.

His job includes protecting the younger players from the girls and some of the older players. He gets country boys and puts them in stable families of good repuation. 

In AFL, due to their behaviour and they are closely watched. There have been quite a few players removed from his team due to bad behaviour. It doesn't take much to ruin a club, look at St Kilda 15 years ago and West Coast more recently.

Rugby League is learning to do the same and all these things happening is not surprising as it is a very male sport with male spectators unlike AFL which has a 50% woman audience.

I don't think there is any excuse for what took place and the accounts say  junior management were in the room! Some of the defence in this forum is this is how some girls perform  is no excuse. I have no pity for Johns, none at all and I agree with what his wife said and I think he is very lucky to still have her.

I am with Prospector that the situation got out of control. People don't act rationally when they are betrayed by their heros.  

Julia, you say why didn't she go to the police straight away? You could ask this of many abused children and adults. I think John's admitted it was out of control by apologising to the girl afterwards. Don't think everyone is as sure of themselves as some of us may be. I was in a sitiation once as an 18 year old and still feel awful thinking about it but as a youngster some of us  don't have the social skills to get out of it. 

Everyone seems to be basing their defence on the girl who was paid to come forward that Channel 9found to try to defend Johns. She was not a very credible witness. She hardly knew her and she is in a country in which rugby was a religion. The girl might have tried to talk to her about the incident and she laughed it off. I would like 4 corners to interview her.

Johns said he was always scared of someone like 4 corners looking into this and obviously seriously regrets the incident. With all the evidence it is a bit much too say she was a slut and deserved what she got as some insinuate. 

People are basically good but can make poor decisions. She was gang banged. She went to the police but the club closed around itself as clubs do so she couldn't get justice. She hid her identity and spoke to 4 corners after they chased her for no personal gain. 

I can't believe the attitude of many people here. Those men have a lot to answer for.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 May 2009)

This article is well written and I agree with it. 


Sad, sorry affair opens up some bigger issuesversion
Baum
May 16, 2009

Page 1 of 2 | Single page 
Advertisement
NO ONE or nothing has emerged with dignity from the Matthew Johns affair.

Not the now infamous former rugby league star, not his cowardly and still anonymous collaborators on that fateful night in Christchurch seven years ago, not "Fatty" ”” henceforth "Fathead" ”” Vautin, not "Clare", not the game, not any game, not commentators who have rushed to shrill and summary judgement ”” some on him, some on her ”” and not much of the media.

As tawdry as any other twist was Tracy Grimshaw's interview with Johns on A Current Affair on the night he was sacked by Channel Nine.

This, typically, was the network having its cake and eating it, too; righteously dispensing with Johns because of his suddenly intolerable poor image, yet exploiting the moment for a ratings bonanza. By writing of it now, I am legitimising it. Sadly, the power of electronic media leaves no choice.

One moment caught my ear. Johns' wife Trish sat with him throughout the tense interview. Asked by Grimshaw what she thought of Clare, she replied, not immediately: "I certainly wouldn't like it to be my daughter."

This was ambiguous. Did she mean: "I wouldn't like it to be my daughter (who behaved like that)?" Or did she mean: "I wouldn't like it to be my daughter (who was caught in such a terrible position)?"

I couldn't tell. To me, this encapsulated the vortex of undercurrents, crossed wires, prejudices, blind spots, misapprehensions and misconstructions that have characterised this case and made it so fraught and so problematic. But that might be a male sensibility; it might be that after all these years, men are still from Mars, women from Venus.

Clearly, it was a night on which no one can reflect proudly. The issue of consent has been well ventilated elsewhere (and its definition sharpened since that night). So has the morality of so-called group sex. So has the certainty that alcohol obviates all considerations except the immediate.

But plainly, something was awry. Whether too drunk, powerless or embarrassed, Clare made no protest on the night.

But she did go to the police five days later; no one goes to the police frivolously.

Johns maintains he was guilty only of infidelity, which he and his wife had thrashed out. The law bears him out. But he also said he had been fearing the Four Corners reporter's phone call for seven years. If innocent, what did he fear? Perhaps, reasonably, the notoriety which now is his. But his tone suggested something more elemental.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 May 2009)

And from an expert in the area.:

Trying to see beyond murk of sport sex debate
May 16, 2009


SPORTSMEN understand rules. So when sexual assault expert Dr Angela Williams talks to them about sex, she's explicit about what's out of bounds. 
It's not just "no" that means no, she tells them. Under Victorian law, not saying "no" does not mean yes. Not resisting does not mean yes. A woman too drunk or too asleep to object to sex is not consenting. Saying yes to one act, or one partner, does not imply consent for more acts, for more partners.

"You must reasonably believe someone is consenting," Dr Williams, a consultant to the Australian Football League and other codes, tells the players. "The best way to do this is to ask. Never, ever assume." Whether you met her five minutes ago, she says, or you are already lovers, sex demands enough respect to pay attention ”” is she/he in a position, and a condition, to consent? "Those people who truly pay attention get it right."

Whatever happened involving Clare, Johns, and his cronies in a Christchurch hotel, it has stirred discussion on the murkiest questions of sex, power and consent. Dr Williams, a forensic physician with the Victorian Institute of Forensic Medicine, finds herself torn between applause for the debate and dismay at some of the assumptions underpinning it. Much of what's wrong she blames on rape mythologies peddled by television crime shows.

The women and girls Dr Williams deals with, brought to her by police investigating whether they are the victims of sex crimes, bear little resemblance to TV victims. Most of the women she examines haven't physically fought back against their attackers. They haven't clawed the skin of their assailant, and they don't have a black eye to support their claims.

It's not what they wore ”” they could be covered top to toe or dressed for a nightclub, the men who target them are looking for vulnerability, not ranking them out of 10, she says.

Many of them have not cried out or screamed, because they were frightened, or embarrassed, or powerless. Fearing resistance is futile, some position themselves so it won't hurt so much. They shut their eyes and wish it to be over, and they berate themselves: Is this my fault?

"People have stereotypes of what a victim should look like, how they should behave." Women who don't fit the picture risk their stories being doubted ”” by their families, by the community, by themselves. Nor do their attackers fit stereotypes. "I've met a lot of offenders, and I couldn't pick them out in a crowd," says Dr Williams.


----------



## scanspeak (16 May 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Everyone seems to be basing their defence on the girl who was paid to come forward that Channel 9found to try to defend Johns. She was not a very credible witness. She hardly knew her and she is in a country in which rugby was a religion. The girl might have tried to talk to her about the incident and she laughed it off. I would like 4 corners to interview her.
> 
> Johns said he was always scared of someone like 4 corners looking into this and obviously seriously regrets the incident. With all the evidence it is a bit much too say she was a slut and deserved what she got as some insinuate.
> 
> ...




FYI Knobby :

http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5570830/group-sex-woman-other-players

"NRL sex woman 'had been with other players'

Rugby league's group sex scandal has taken a dramatic new turn, with the woman's former employer claiming the night in question wasn't the first time she'd been with football players.

John Butterfield (pictured) was the owner of the Racecourse Hotel in February 2002, and says the woman boasted to colleagues about having sex with two local rugby players, just hours before the group sex session that has rocked the NRL.

He says the woman, who was identified only as 'Clare' in an edition of the ABC's Four Corners programme, told work mates she'd had sex with two rugby players in a nightclub toilet the night before.

"She gloated to staff members about the great night she's had and the way she got them in the men's toilet and had a bit of fun with them," Mr Butterfield told 7News.

He added that she bragged about her involvement in both incidents for at least four days.

"She just did nothing but tell all the staff what a great night she had ... and to put it quite crudely... that she had the whole team in bed with her."

But rape crisis counsellors say that doesn't mean she wasn't a victim, arguing that she could have initially been in shock.

Dr Kim McGregor said, "Sometimes a rape survivor might think she was to blame and that she brought it upon herself."

As the scandal continues, Titans star Preston Campbell is the latest player from the 2002 Sharks team to deny his involvement.

But like Matthew Johns, who has been stood down from his TV role at Channel Nine since admitting his involvement, Campbell won't call for those who were there on the night to come forward.

"Oh look, that's up to them," said Campbell. "If they want to come forward they can, but that's totally up to them."

They're at odds with the Rugby League Players' Association.

Late on Friday another former Sharks player came forward. Daniel Ninness says he wasn't involved in the group sex inside the motel.

He did accept the woman's offer to go home with her, but he says they didn't have sex."


----------



## Knobby22 (16 May 2009)

scanspeak said:


> FYI Knobby :
> 
> 
> "She just did nothing but tell all the staff what a great night she had ... and to put it quite crudely... that she had the whole team in bed with her."
> ...




I agree.


----------



## bunyip (16 May 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> This article is well written and I agree with it.
> 
> 
> One moment caught my ear. Johns' wife Trish sat with him throughout the tense interview. Asked by Grimshaw what she thought of Clare, she replied, not immediately: "I certainly wouldn't like it to be my daughter."
> ...




As I recall, Trish Johns said 'I wouldn't like _*her*_ to be my daughter.
I don't think she said 'I wouldn't like _*it*_ to be my daughter.'

If Tracy Grimshaw was more on the ball she would have responded with _"And would you like Mathew or someone like him to be your son, given the standard of his behaviour."?_
But perhaps Grimshaw was reluctant to inflict further pain on Mrs Johns, given that she's already suffered considerable grief and embarrassment because of what her grubby, immature little husband got himself involved in.

As for the girl going to the police five days later, who knows what her motives were, particularly after spending the previous five days boasting about her exploits with Johns and his mates.

A sordid incident all round, involving some very grubby little people, both male and female.


----------



## bunyip (16 May 2009)

Rape victims don't brag with relish about the great time they had with the person or people who supposedly raped them.
And according to the girls boss and her work colleagues, she spent days on end doing exactly that - bragging with relish about her exploits with Johns & Co.

Seems highly likely that she participated just as eagerly as the blokes did, despite her claims to the contrary.


----------



## Knobby22 (16 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Rape victims don't brag with relish about the great time they had with the person or people who supposedly raped them.
> And according to the girls boss and her work colleagues, she spent days on end doing exactly that - bragging with relish about her exploits with Johns & Co.
> 
> Seems highly likely that she participated just as eagerly as the blokes did, despite her claims to the contrary.




And then went to the police and then proceeded with her breakdown.


----------



## bunyip (17 May 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> And then went to the police and then proceeded with her breakdown.




She displayed conflicting modes of behaviour. First she boasted for days about her exploits - that alone strongly suggests willing participation on her part. Then she complained to the police and supposedly had a breakdown.

Maybe she saw an opportunity of getting that compensation package that Julia told us is available in NZ.
Or maybe the girl is or was mentally unstable.

None of us knows for certain.


----------



## cordelia (17 May 2009)

Jewels said:


> 15 years ago I used to work with a very high profile AFL player.  Couldn't wait for Monday mornings at work to get the low down on his/their exploits on the weekend.  This sought of thing has been going on for decades.  There are females out there who are effectivly AFL/NRL/NBL groupies who want to get into group sex with a few fine bodied athletes.  Until you get rid of the groupies you'll always have this sought of problem within the sport.  I actually feal sorry for MJ in all this and think it was absolutely disgusting what channel 9 did to one of it's own employees.   Shame channel 9 shame.





i shared an apartment with a girl who made a mission of screwing not only footballers but anyone in the limelight...Sometimes there would be two or three a night....we would waych the footy and she would sit there naming who she had done!

On several occasions I went outclubbing with her ...always after a footy game. She would disappear for a couple of hours and then come back bragging about who she had just bonked


One time, a very well known player, called me at work after one of my friends interludes. She had gone off to work and somehow or anotherhe had locked himself out of the house and needed to get back in. God knows how he got my work number!!!

These girls are PREDATORS...don't be fooled.. I have seen it first hand


----------



## Calliope (17 May 2009)

Those of us who thought the Four Corners program would damage the Rugby League image, have badly misjudged the mentality of RL supporters. It's just ho-hum stuff to them.

Hordes of supporters have flooded web face pages with the support of Matthew Johns.

And this morning it is reported that this weekend gate attendances and TV audiences for the League have substantially increased.


----------



## cordelia (17 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> No,   She never said she consented to any sex act.  With anyone.  As for your other posts Cordelia, whether or not you are male or female, quite obviously you have never experienced the situation of being a female in a group of 12 'mates' who are drunk and out for their turn.  You know nothing of the feeling of powerlessness, vulnerability and terror that such a situation involves.
> My argument is that fundamentally, regardless of whether a woman is drunk, sexily dressed, with one man or two, she is not consenting to sex. Just as a man, who is drunk, sexily dressed, with one man or two, is not consenting to sex.  And that is the bottom line.
> 
> Metric, why are you so hung up on sheep?




why would you go back to a hotel room with two men if not to have sex!!! What were they going to do? talk about the weather! Surely you can't be serious? If two guys asked me to go back to a hotel room with them I would know exactly what was in store!

As for me knowing nothing about feeling powerless I suggest you make such a statement based on credible facts. Furthermore, this issue is not about whether or not the woman was drunk or sexily dressed and that having a bearing on her consent to sex with a group of men....


The issue is that this woman has come forward after some time making generalised and unsubstantiated claims against a well known group of rugby players...Johns being the apparant scapegoat....

This woman went of her own volition to a hotel room with two men clearly with the intention to have sex... a few more turned up but as a friend of hers has now said she was a willing participant and in fact bragged about it at work for a few days after!!!

This is not rape!!! This is a footy groupie trying to get some money and notoriety!

Prospector, its great to carry the banner for women's rights but being a zealot causes more damage


----------



## nulla nulla (17 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Those of us who thought the Four Corners program would damage the Rugby League image, have badly misjudged the mentality of RL supporters. It's just ho-hum stuff to them.
> 
> Hordes of supporters have flooded web face pages with the support of Matthew Johns.
> 
> And this morning it is reported that this weekend gate attendances and TV audiences for the League have substantially increased.




Maybe the the increase in spectators was due to people going along to play "match the dick to the player" rather than support the players?


----------



## bunyip (17 May 2009)

_"She gloated to staff members about the great night she's had and the way she got them in the men's toilet and had a bit of fun with them," Mr Butterfield told 7News.

He added that she bragged about her involvement in both incidents for at least four days.

"She just did nothing but tell all the staff what a great night she had ... and to put it quite crudely... that she had the whole team in bed with her."

But rape crisis counsellors say that doesn't mean she wasn't a victim, arguing that she could have initially been in shock.

Dr Kim McGregor said, "Sometimes a rape survivor might think she was to blame and that she brought it upon herself."_


Those rape crisis counsellors don't sound too credible by saying the girl could have just been a victim in shock.


A girl bragging about her sexual exploits with a football team is not exactly behaving like a rape victim in shock.


----------



## Prospector (17 May 2009)

So where is my credibility with rape victims and offenders and how 'they' behave?  Actually, all types of victims of crime and their offenders - murders, assaults and the like.  Well, never managed to speak with a murder victim though...

In my former life, I was a Police Officer and have worked with more victims, and offenders, than most, if not all of you.  Except maybe Julia.  And one thing you very quickly learn is that the behaviour of people under stress is completely unpredictable.  Far from it.  Especially PTSD.  The one thing all women and men feel is total lack of power.  

Julia and I disagree on whether consent was formed.  As do others.  Many of you are saying that because she went to a room with 2 men that she was consenting to sex.  I can accept that possibly she was consenting to sex with at least one of them; but no-one knows.  But where is the evidence, other than other's hearsay, to say she consented to sex with multiple people who climbed through windows to get in?  

And why did he apologise later that night if Clare had been fully able to stop what was happening.  He felt her powelessness to control the situation.  That is why he apologised.

This case probably would not have been successfully prosecuted in court.  Because of the timing and lack of corroborative evidence.  But she would certainly have been given the courtesy of being considered as a victim, even though her behaviour at the beginning did put her in a situation where consent or otherwise to the first two men was difficult to establish.  That is a 'he said-she said' situation.

But what happened after that?  We have men climbing through windows.  Why?

Do not assume that because no charges were laid, that a crime did not occur.

The prior behaviour of a person who claims to have been raped is not admissable in court.  The question cannot even be asked.  So past history is irrelevant. A prostitute can be the victim of rape.

Some of you say I have not had the exposure to women like Clare is supposed to be; well, I think maybe I have.  I could make your toes curl in fact. I have seen stuff that none of you would have seen. And with a partner who was involved in professional sport, I most certainly have seen groupies!  Hell, this was at the time of Dennis Lillee, Rod Marsh, David Hookes.......and with AFL players.  So yes Cordelia, I too have seen this first hand.   And some nasty unreported stuff happened then too!   Not with the names above though, or I would not have mentioned them..Her behaviour prior, whilst like nothing I would ever imagine doing myself in going to a room with 2 men, is not consent to anything else that followed.  

If a drunk man went to a room with 2 other men, is he knowingly consenting to sex with them just by going into a room?  No!

She is supposed to have bragged about it later - but after 5 days has gone to Police.  Ask yourself why would she do that?  Why would she 'undo' her 'persona as a successful rugby player bedder?  Her going to Police is completely out of character with everything else she is purported to have done in the last few months.  So why did she go to the Police and undo all her her bragging?   

I am not a zealot for women Cordelia.  I think women who get themselves into situations like this are stupid, their risk management is poor, they are potentially making poor decisions that expose themselves to horrible situations like this.  But that doesnt give us the right to say she consented to what happened.

I do actually feel sorry for Johns; quite obviously he did something which after an hour or so he deeply regretted (having sex with the girl, not saying her raped her!), and has paid silently all these years, confessed to his wife at the time, and now publically outed.

And now, as predicted, another story erupts:
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25493261-1248,00.html

And the first paragraph of how stuff like this escalates should resonate with what I have said above.


----------



## scanspeak (17 May 2009)

These girls clearly crave attention, whether it be by bonking "high-status" males, or from the media.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 May 2009)

And I would just like to add that she was found by psychologists in New Zealand  to be suffering from post traumatic stress syndrome. 

Everyone should watch todays edition of Offsiders a sports program on ABC.
The evidence is damning. The sports commentators, all deeply in sport equally damning. Check it out.


----------



## haunting (17 May 2009)

Julia said:


> In the whole of this thread I don't recall anyone condoning the behaviour of either the players or the girl...




1) I didn't just infer the people in this forum. I was also inferring the general rugby fraternity. If they had not been condoning this kind of behaviour, it wouldn't have been part of the culture for this long. This my perception. If you don't agree, it's quite alright.

2) Again, if there's no perception of hypocritical attitude or responses coming from various people, then, I would put it down to our differences here. Ultimately the society as a whole will decide. Everyone will have to face their own god when the time comes.


----------



## Calliope (17 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> And now, as predicted, another story erupts:
> http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25493261-1248,00.html
> 
> And the first paragraph of how stuff like this escalates should resonate with what I have said above.




An excellent post Prospector.

I referred to the Brisbane nightclub story in a previous post. In SE Qld. the Broncos can do no wrong. For years their unsavoury escapades have been covered up, not only by the Club but the local news media generally. The disgusting behaviour by Hunt, Thaiday, and Boyd in the nightclub toilet was played down by the Police Minister while the so-called police investigations were under way. Of course she is an avid Bronco supporter. A member of the corporate box set. 

The police happily accepted the trio's mobile phone films as evidence that it was consensual, although they probably filmed it for bragging rights.

The hysteria and parochialism  surrounding the State of Origin games doesn't say much for the "Smart State". World events take a back seat. 

Bruno Cullen, the Bronco's CEO says that things have changed since 2002. Sure. The above trio was fined but not suspended, not because of what they did, but because of the bad publicity. 

Now that they realise that bad publicity doesn't worry their supporters, they probable won't persist with their phony apologies. 

The only ones who can pull them into line are their sponsors, a la Cronulla.


----------



## awg (17 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> This case probably would not have been successfully prosecuted in court.  Because of the timing and lack of corroborative evidence.  But she would certainly have been given the courtesy of being considered as a victim, even though her behaviour at the beginning did put her in a situation where consent or otherwise to the first two men was difficult to establish.  That is a 'he said-she said' situation.
> 
> 
> Do not assume that because no charges were laid, that a crime did not occur.
> ...





IMO the reason this case could never progress would have certainly been the statements of her workmates= Case Closed. (would that not kill the case stone dead, Prospector?

I am unaware how the Criminal Victims Compo system works in NZ, but I do know that here, every low-life that ever gets injured in                           Oz, is very keen to get up to $A50k...would you agree Prospector?..(not talking about the "genuine" ones) 


Is the above link, is that the chick that went into the men's dunny and gave 3 Broncos head?...maybe they should charge them and her with public indecency!

sorry, but i doubt anyone would treat a woman with "respect" in those situations. (mens toilet..i am not comfortable with women entering the mens toilet, except if they need to use it for the approved purpose) 

Human sexuality is a vastly interesting topic.

One textbook at my wifes office is a study of "Sexual Deviancy"

I skimmed it once, and it was interesting how they define and measure what constitutes deviancy...it was basically measured by standard deviation from the mean.

I do recall voyeurism was one topic included


----------



## moXJO (17 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> The police happily accepted the trio's mobile phone films as evidence that it was consensual, although they probably filmed it for bragging rights.





This is the big issue that needs to be dealt with imo. These guys have learnt to cover there bases. The NRL players can be put in as many education programs as you like and this situation will still arise. Women also need to learn that clearly stating 'no' in a situation she is initially unsure of is vital. Being taught that assertiveness is needed in these situations is clearly a must. Alcohol consumption is also a massive factor.


----------



## Prospector (17 May 2009)

awg said:


> IMO the reason this case could never progress would have certainly been the statements of her workmates= Case Closed. (would that not kill the case stone dead, Prospector?




No, it is all hearsay which is inadmissable in court.  It would however be a part of the decision making as to the witness and the ability of the prosecution to prove its case.  One thing that isnt widely known is that many cases simply dont go to court, not because the police dont think a crime has been committed, but they just cant get that vital piece of evidence that clinches the case for them.  Police and Prosecution actually go through every case before deciding to go to Court, and if there is not almost definite agreement that the offender will be found guilty (say 90% or thereabouts) then they will not proceed.  Unless of course that new evidence is found.  I suspect in the next few years, with the arrival of DNA testing, that a lot more crimes in the past are going to be solved.

This is relevant but :topic

In SA, in the late 70's, we had a series of crimes against teenage boys. "The Family' crimes The boys were abducted off the street, drugged, and held captive for a few days or weeks, with unspeakable crimes, including 'surgery' being done on them.  Then they were killed.  I think there were about 5 lads in all who were killed, but others excaped, aged in the mid teens.  One of them was the son of our Channel 9 News reader - Rob Kelvin - so the kids came from 'good' families.

The Police know who 'The Family' are; they have told the victims mothers who they are, but so far they have only managed to convict one of them, an accountant named Bevan Spencer Von Einem.  They have said that the others are  a Surgeon (hence the surgery and the drugs to stupify), a Businessman, and a prominent lawyer.  But they cannot arrest these men until they get the last bit of evidence.  They are hoping for a death bed confession.

http://www.thecrimeweb.com/voneinem.htm

A very sad read.

South Australia has an appalling history for horrible crimes.


----------



## awg (17 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> No, it is all hearsay which is inadmissable in court.  It would however be a part of the decision making as to the witness and the ability of the prosecution to prove its case.  One thing that isnt widely known is that many cases simply dont go to court, not because the police dont think a crime has been committed, but they just cant get that vital piece of evidence that clinches the case for them.  Police and Prosecution actually go through every case before deciding to go to Court, and if there is not almost definite agreement that the offender will be found guilty (say 90% or thereabouts) then they will not proceed.  .





Thanks for that clarification.

However, your reply does highlight something I am sure you would have experienced as a Police Officer.

They have much onerous work to do.

I have found them to be just as judgemental as anyone else.

Once they heard what her workmates had to say, balanced with the other circs of the case, that would have lessened their enthusiasm to prosecute this matter...surely?

having said that, it does sound like they did a thorough investigation, and I get the sense the local cops are pretty disgusted by the behaviour of said "louts"


----------



## Prospector (17 May 2009)

awg said:


> Once they heard what her workmates had to say, balanced with the other circs of the case, that would have lessened their enthusiasm to prosecute this matter...surely?
> 
> having said that, it does sound like they did a thorough investigation, and I get the sense the local cops are pretty disgusted by the behaviour of said "louts"




Yes, it would certainly provide a context for it awg.  I am sure they did do a thorough job, you just have to work with what you have.  And the Officer they interviewed certainly seemed to have given her considerable support, years later, and yes, I suspect in 'the old days' some different kind of punishment may have been handed out.


----------



## bunyip (17 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> I do actually feel sorry for Johns; quite obviously he did something which after an hour or so he deeply regretted (having sex with the girl, not saying her raped her!), and has paid silently all these years, confessed to his wife at the time, and now publically outed.




Geez Prospector....you're feeling sorry for Johns?? You're a woman.....he treated your gender with absolute disrespect by what he did with that slutty little girl, and by his total lack of respect and consideration for his wife. And you're feeling sorry for him?!

That sort of behaviour by a married man is just about as low as a man can stoop. Any trauma or embarrassment he's gone through since then is far less than he deserves. The bloke is a scumbag, and I don't care how sorry he claims to be or  what he's done since then to redeem himself.
His wife should have treated him like the creep he is by booting him out and getting herself a real man who respects women.

And I'll refute any argument from anyone who says 'we all make mistakes'.
Johns didn't make a mistake - he made a conscious decision to have sex with a bimbo, well aware that he was committing a vile insult against his wife. 
That's not a mistake - it's a calculated act of the lowest order by a person of the lowest order.

Johns is not worthy of sympathy from you or me or anyone else - he's worthy only of contempt.


----------



## awg (17 May 2009)

there is a clause in their contracts about " bringing the game into disrepute"
(although its a bit like the person Alan Bond sued for slander, their defence was it not possible to slander his reputation").

This means anyone who gets their name in the paper for impropriety can be censured.

It is the same for corporate or Govt employees too.

If i was on $300k, at Freehills, ATO, CBA etc..and it was MY name in the media, I would be stood down.

they will have to maintain standards of decency..haha

I still find the media treatment hypocritical, and I reckon there will be some fallout in TV land...they play it hard...but doing a hatchet job on Matt Johns will cause bitter emnities


----------



## Calliope (17 May 2009)

moXJO said:


> This is the big issue that needs to be dealt with imo. These guys have learnt to cover there bases. The NRL players can be put in as many education programs as you like and this situation will still arise. Women also need to learn that clearly stating 'no' in a situation she is initially unsure of is vital. Being taught that assertiveness is needed in these situations is clearly a must. Alcohol consumption is also a massive factor.




I think, moXJO, that assertiveness is what gets a lot of young (and not so young) women into these predicaments in the first place. Their search for equality has encouraged them to adopt the worst traits normally found in young men. 

The list is long; bad language, coarse language, binge drinking, falling down drunk and vomiting in the steets, belching and farting, and promiscuity which includes aggressively accosting men for a "good root"

Strangely enough they haven't taken up spitting, but only I think, because they are no good at it.


----------



## Calliope (17 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Johns is not worthy of sympathy from you or me or anyone else - he's worthy only of contempt.




Putting on a contrite expression, shedding a few crocodile tears and saying sorry is a proven recipe for winning sympathy practised by some of our biggest scumbags.


----------



## moXJO (17 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> I think, moXJO, that assertiveness is what gets a lot of young (and not so young) women into these predicaments in the first place. Their search for equality has encouraged them to adopt the worst traits normally found in young men.
> 
> The list is long; bad language, coarse language, binge drinking, falling down drunk and vomiting in the steets, belching and farting, and promiscuity which includes aggressively accosting men for a "good root"
> 
> Strangely enough they haven't taken up spitting, but only I think, because they are no good at it.




Yes, but when placed in these situations obviously the false(drunken) bravado falls away. And also alcohol, I know I keep harping on about it. But I have seen some horrible examples of women being trashed out of their minds as of late. And everyone seems to think that it’s normal, or not much of a problem.


----------



## scanspeak (17 May 2009)

The hypocrisy of Channel 9 in all of this is staggering given that earlier in the year they were peddling Ladettes to ladies. 

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,28383,25000987-5016681,00.html

"The first episode, to screen on Channel 9 on February 16, features:

CONTESTANTS taking down their pants and pressing buttocks against a bus window. 

A DRUNK Zoe Irons vomiting violently into a bucket.

DRUNKEN contestants with their pants down, squatting behind a bus, to heed calls of nature.

FITTING of a sex toy with batteries.

NICOLE Mitchell pushing her breasts in a strip club patron's face and asking for a "10-drink minimum" before she can strip. 

CONTESTANT Mitchell pretending to be a DJ by spinning a CD on a nipple.

A CONTESTANT showing contempt for school instructors by hitching up her skirt and giving them a close-up of her backside.

Melbourne psychologist Dr Janet Hall is disgusted such behaviour is televised when society is struggling to curb anti-social behaviour prompted by alcohol abuse.

"The impact on viewers could be a double-edged sword. Some may judge these women as representing all women and therefore fair game for low-level encounters. Some may see them as role models to follow," she said. "


----------



## Calliope (17 May 2009)

Only in Queensland can you be a grub and a hero at the same time.  Premier Bligh said today that *" our heroes should act like heroes"*

By that she meant that Hunt, Thaiday and Boyd should apologise to the woman involved in their sleazy acts in the nightclub toilet.


----------



## scanspeak (17 May 2009)

I've always found it perplexing that guys kicking a ball around an oval should be considered "heroes".


----------



## bunyip (17 May 2009)

scanspeak said:


> I've always found it perplexing that guys kicking a ball around an oval should be considered "heroes".





Me too. Why would anyone hero-worship a bunch of cowards and thugs who couldn't act like real men if they tried.
Similarly, why would anyone feel sorry for these clowns when their grubby escapades land them in hot water.

One of the problems with Rugby League is that many of the officials are former players themselves, with principles and values that apparently are little different to those displayed by the current players. 
Hence, they take a pathetically lenient stance on the issue of poor behaviour, rather than bring down severe penalties to stamp it out.
And so, the bad eggs are allowed to stay in the game rather than being booted out to make way for younger players with talent and enough brains to behave themselves.


----------



## kitehigh (17 May 2009)

scanspeak said:


> I've always found it perplexing that guys kicking a ball around an oval should be considered "heroes".




Me too!!
I detest this whole worship celebratory culture.  I don't give a toss who someone is or isn't, they could be the crown prince.  I judge people on their actions and how they treat people.

Unfortunately we have people treated as heroes and celebrities in our society and than said people feel that they can get away with just about anything.  To make the matter worse you get these pathetic groupies chasing after these so called heroes.     

I don't watch sport as I'd much rather spend my time doing rather than watching.


----------



## Julia (17 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> I think, moXJO, that assertiveness is what gets a lot of young (and not so young) women into these predicaments in the first place. Their search for equality has encouraged them to adopt the worst traits normally found in young men.
> 
> .



Your comment here shows a complete misunderstanding of assertiveness.
It has nothing to do with 'equality' or aggression.

Assertiveness is the skill of behaving with self respect, and respect towards others, whilst not accepting being taken advantage of or treated badly.

An assertive person - whether male or female - will know how to communicate their feelings to others whilst at the same time being prepared to listen genuinely to the response of that other person, and understand that other person's point of view.

   It means having the capacity to objectively understand a situation and not be a victim, whether of your own emotions or those of other people.

It means being prepared to apologise when you are wrong, and sometimes to admit that you just don't know something.

It means standing up for yourself but not in that process trampling on the rights of others.






scanspeak said:


> I've always found it perplexing that guys kicking a ball around an oval should be considered "heroes".






bunyip said:


> Me too. Why would anyone hero-worship a bunch of cowards and thugs who couldn't act like real men if they tried.
> Similarly, why would anyone feel sorry for these clowns when their grubby escapades land them in hot water.
> 
> .






kitehigh said:


> Me too!!
> I detest this whole worship celebratory culture.  I don't give a toss who someone is or isn't, they could be the crown prince.  I judge people on their actions and how they treat people.
> 
> Unfortunately we have people treated as heroes and celebrities in our society and than said people feel that they can get away with just about anything.  To make the matter worse you get these pathetic groupies chasing after these so called heroes.




Add me to this list too.   What's to like, let alone worship!


----------



## Julia (17 May 2009)

Amongst this thread, the concept of infidelity has been given little consideration.

A couple of us expressed some sympathy for Trish Johns, whereupon Calliope asserted that "she would have known what she was letting herself in for" and clearly had no compassion for her situation.  I'm not so sure that when she married Johns she would necessarily have been able to predict his future behaviour.  But I don't know.  He could be right.

Then later, when someone else indicated a similar sympathy, and even included Johns himself as a subject of some sympathy,  Bunyip was outraged that Mrs Johns could bring herself to stay with this unfaithful creep.

Marriages hold together and split up for all sorts of reasons.  I expect in the case of the Johns' there could be some financial attractions attached to staying with him, plus I understand they have children.  Outrage and self respect are very fine, but sometimes other considerations outweigh this righteousness.

Thinking about this led me to wonder how ASF members feel about infidelity in their own relationships?

I heard a comment on the radio this evening that "if it was just sex as it was in the Johns incident", it wouldn't really mean much.  But if were a long term emotionally involved relationship, then it's a whole other story.

So how do you see this?   What standards apply in your relationships?
Would you forgive infidelity?  How would you re-establish trust once it has been lost?  Do you see other aspects of a marriage or long term relationship as equally important, e.g. children or finances, even friends and social life?


----------



## scanspeak (17 May 2009)

Julia, I think what Calliope may have meant was "bravado", rather than assertiveness. Lots of women have bravado in spades. "More front than Myer" is the phrase that comes to mind.

As for infidelity, I have a zero tolerance policy. If my girl was unfaithful (and it has happened in previous relationships) I would lose any respect or trust in her. The relationship would be over.


----------



## bunyip (18 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Then later, when someone else indicated a similar sympathy, and even included Johns himself as a subject of some sympathy,  Bunyip was outraged that Mrs Johns could bring herself to stay with this unfaithful creep.




Julia

I'm incredulous, but not outraged, that Trish Johns stuck with her pathetic husband.
Any outrage I feel is directed towards Johns for treating his wife in such a shabby and disrespectful manner. 
Also I'm disgusted that he insulted the integrity of my gender by his actions.

Thanks to him and his kind, men are more than ever getting a reputation as sex-crazed fools who will take it wherever they can get it, with no consideration for the consequences.
But not all of us are like that.....I'm 27 years married and although I've looked at plenty of women other than my wife, and had plenty of thoughties, I've never been even remotely tempted to go any further than that.
There are plenty of blokes just like me who place a high value on being loyal to their partners. We have contempt for the Mathew Johns types and their low moral standards and their disrespect for women.


----------



## Prospector (18 May 2009)

I certainly couldnt dismiss the images I would retain of this experience, so I dont know how she has stayed with her husband.  Rather like the way Shane Warne's wife (Simone?) seems to keep bouncing back to him; guess its lonely on your own after the celebrity world - no-one wants to know you.  And there is that feeling that they were just 'silly boys doing silly boys things' - hence the names - Matty, Warney - like they never grew up.  Peter Pan boys.

Infidelity is a real deal breaker for me; once the trust is gone, what do you have left?  But maybe for them, they go into the relationship never having the trust in the first place?  As someone said, maybe they knew exactly what they were going to get when they married and decided to accept whatever comes?  Turned a blind eye to it (except not this time!) rather like the women in 'Underbelly' did.


----------



## Calliope (18 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Your comment here shows a complete misunderstanding of assertiveness.
> It has nothing to do with 'equality' or aggression.
> 
> Assertiveness is the skill of behaving with self respect, and respect towards others, whilst not accepting being taken advantage of or treated badly.
> ...




Thanks for the lecture. Your  definition is the feminist new age definition. I of course, used the word in the in the sense, as my dictionary defines it as;

"Expressing oneself forcefully or boldly", or as scanspeak suggests with bravado.

It probably also means sticking up for your rights, which I suppose includes the right to behave badly.


----------



## Mr J (18 May 2009)

Some opinions here are a little too black and white for my taste. Not much point getting into it, as I can already tell it won't be a productive conversation.


----------



## Farencue (18 May 2009)

Agree with you Mr J


----------



## investorpaul (18 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> Infidelity is a real deal breaker for me; once the trust is gone, what do you have left?  But maybe for them, they go into the relationship never having the trust in the first place?  As someone said, maybe they knew exactly what they were going to get when they married and decided to accept whatever comes?  Turned a blind eye to it (except not this time!) rather like the women in 'Underbelly' did.




IMO they love the lifestyle so they turn a blind eye or try and forget about what there husbands/partners get up to.

Basically they dont want to miss out on the parties, the fast cars, nice houses and overseas holidays.


----------



## Calliope (18 May 2009)

Julia said:


> A couple of us expressed some sympathy for Trish Johns, whereupon Calliope asserted that "she would have known what she was letting herself in for" and clearly had no compassion for her situation.  I'm not so sure that when she married Johns she would necessarily have been able to predict his future behaviour.  But I don't know.  He could be right.




There may be one or two who married these guys unaware of their real characters. I believe this occurred in the case of *Andrew* John's first wife who was a decent girl from a decent background. She divorced him when it became apparent he was beyond redemption.

Some women of course are attracted to men of bad character.


----------



## Julia (18 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> It probably also means sticking up for your rights, which I suppose includes the right to behave badly.



No, it doesn't mean that.
My point was that if the girl had some understanding of assertive behaviour she wouldn't have permitted the situation to get out of control, if in fact that is what happened.

Here is the Uni of Qld definition, since you're not happy with mine:



> Assertiveness is the direct and honest communication of your opinions, feelings, needs, and rights in a way that does not violate the personal rights of others. It involves standing up for your own rights, while acknowledging the rights of others, and working towards a win-win solution. Assertiveness is different from non-assertiveness and aggressiveness.


----------



## Mr J (18 May 2009)

investorpaul said:


> IMO they love the lifestyle so they turn a blind eye or try and forget about what there husbands/partners get up to.
> 
> Basically they dont want to miss out on the parties, the fast cars, nice houses and overseas holidays.




Living that life is costly when one can't afford it. Most footy players aren't paid that well, considering most of them won't see a lot of opportunity in retirement.


----------



## Happy (18 May 2009)

Would:

"Willie Mason caught urinating in public"

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/814836/willie-mason-caught-urinating-in-public


fit this thread?


----------



## Calliope (18 May 2009)

Julia said:


> No, it doesn't mean that
> 
> Here is the Uni of Qld definition, since you're not happy with mine:




That's a nonsense definition. Academics and ideologists are fond of changing the definitions of  words to suit their agenda. 

Orwell called it "newspeak"

Let's not get bogged down in semantics


----------



## Prospector (18 May 2009)

Mr J said:


> Living that life is costly when one can't afford it. Most footy players aren't paid that well, considering most of them won't see a lot of opportunity in retirement.




I am betting they arent even wise enough to realise that the heydays wont last forever! Or if they do, couldnt care less.  And of course, the media always recycles them as experts too, dont they.  Regardless of whether they can actually put two words together.  The AFL is expert at doing that, I suspect Rugby is the same.


----------



## awg (18 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Amongst this thread, the concept of infidelity has been given little consideration.
> 
> A couple of us expressed some sympathy for Trish Johns, whereupon Calliope asserted that "she would have known what she was letting herself in for" and clearly had no compassion for her situation.  I'm not so sure that when she married Johns she would necessarily have been able to predict his future behaviour.  But I don't know.  He could be right.
> 
> ...





I have always advised couples with children to make EVERY effort to rebuild their marriage, if there is any prospect of salvaging it.

My experience when people dont they throw their kids into a world of hurt.

My view, is this is normally due to "selfishness"

Matt Johns has been selfish and stupid, should Trish Johns do that to her kids?

As Julia noted , morals vary. 

How would each ASF poster feel if their stupidest, drunkest, most debauched act was public discussion.

maybe we need a new thread





Calliope said:


> There may be one or two who married these guys unaware of their real characters. I believe this occurred in the case of *Andrew* John's first wife who was a decent girl from a decent background. She divorced him when it became apparent he was beyond redemption.
> 
> Some women of course are attracted to men of bad character.




Andrew Johns has recently been diagnosed with Bipolar Disorder,
this illness causes some very poor judgement and behaviour

Considering what he was laboring under, his achievments are remarkable


----------



## Julia (18 May 2009)

Awg, glad I'm not the only one who can see some shades of grey.

Rebuilding trust would be a difficulty.


----------



## bunyip (18 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> I am betting they arent even wise enough to realise that the heydays wont last forever! Or if they do, couldnt care less.  And of course, the media always recycles them as experts too, dont they.  Regardless of whether they can actually put two words together.  The AFL is expert at doing that, I suspect Rugby is the same.




But let's make sure we distinguish between the two Rugby codes here. 
Most of the former Rugby Union players who retain a relatively high profile in the media are articulate, intelligent men. A few who come to mind are Tim Horan, Andrew Slack, John Kirwin, Ben Darwin, Phil Kearns, Dan Crowley, Mark Ella, Nick Farr-Jones.
Compare these blokes to the former League player buffoons who regularly feature in the media as the voice of Rugby League....chalk and cheese.


----------



## Calliope (18 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> But let's make sure we distinguish between the two Rugby codes here.
> Most of the former Rugby Union players who retain a relatively high profile in the media are articulate, intelligent men. A few who come to mind are Tim Horan, Andrew Slack, John Kirwin, Ben Darwin, Phil Kearns, Dan Crowley, Mark Ella, Nick Farr-Jones.
> Compare these blokes to the former League player buffoons who regularly feature in the media as the voice of Rugby League....chalk and cheese.




Yes, it would be very hard to find seven former league players you nominate as "statesmen" in the code.

Union players' wives often have eminent careers also.



> Wallaby Greats to Fill Statesmen Roles
> April 23, 2008 - 2:32pm
> Story by: ARU
> Seven Wallaby greats have accepted roles as Rugby Statesmen as the Australian Rugby Union today launched a rally cry for the game at all levels – Built By Rugby, Forged In Union.
> ...


----------



## Prospector (18 May 2009)

Rugby Union (the main Rugby creed played in SA) is only played in SA Colleges - public schools dont play it.  And most of these go onto Business careers or University.


----------



## Kez180 (18 May 2009)

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/814995/nrl-teams-told-to-adopt-a-brothel

That is all...


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Yes, it would be very hard to find seven former league players you nominate as "statesmen" in the code.
> 
> Union players' wives often have eminent careers also.




You forget Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan.
They were fearsome rugby league players in their day.
Real ear biters.

gg


----------



## bunyip (18 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You forget Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan.
> They were fearsome rugby league players in their day.
> Real ear biters.
> 
> gg




They're still 'ear biters' aren't they?


----------



## bunyip (18 May 2009)

_Footballers who want to participate in group sex should be encouraged by their clubs to do so at legal brothels, a political party says.

The National Rugby League has been rocked over the past week by claims by various women that they took part in group sex with players.

A number of the incidents have prompted allegations of sexual assault.

"The NRL needs to set up a brothel liaison office and to conduct brothel information sessions with all players, including those who profess to be religious," party convenor with the Australian Sex Party Fiona Patten said.

There are more than 200 legal brothels and 6,000 sex workers in NSW.

Ms Patten said most teams have a local brothel that could be adopted as their own.

"(And) If players are away on tour, they could ring another local brothel... and arrange a service with a qualified sex worker for five or six players."_


Good God.....now I've heard it all. It wouldn't even surprise me if the Rugby League hierarchy were to publicly come out in support of the idea. 
Maybe club officials will negotiate a group booking discount for their players!!

This could open up an exciting new career for Mathew Johns as Rugby Leagues brothel liaison officer!
But then, why would players pay for something that's available to them free of charge?
Who the heck are the Australian Sex Party anyway....is there a political party by that name? I've never heard of them.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> _
> 
> This could open up an exciting new career for Mathew Johns as Rugby Leagues brothel liaison officer!
> ._



_

Great idea, his wife will be happy that he can maintain his career. _


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (18 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> _Footballers who want to participate in group sex should be encouraged by their clubs to do so at legal brothels, a political party says.
> 
> The National Rugby League has been rocked over the past week by claims by various women that they took part in group sex with players.
> 
> ...





This in fact is quite a good idea.

Sport, especially contact sport is a substitute for war. Most soldiers down the ages have been working class lads and brothels have traditionally been provided for them. The officers usually rooted the captured gentry.

So if these working class lads are full of adrenaline and testosterone after a game , why not let them have a root or two in a brothel. It may even entice some of the more highly sexed rugby league female camp followers into becoming prostitutes. This would legalise their fascination with the players and in the process make a few dollars for their bronzing.

gg


----------



## bunyip (18 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This in fact is quite a good idea.
> 
> Sport, especially contact sport is a substitute for war. Most soldiers down the ages have been working class lads and brothels have traditionally been provided for them. The officers usually rooted the captured gentry.
> 
> ...





Nobody is stopping them from patronising brothels, and I'm sure quite a few of them do exactly that. 
But why would they need to pay for sex, given that there seems to be a  never-ending supply of women throwing themselves at them?
Why would they rent a book when they can use the library for free?
League players should simply learn how to enjoy normal sex lives like anyone else without making animals of themselves.


----------



## Solly (18 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> You forget Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan.
> They were fearsome rugby league players in their day.
> Real ear biters.
> 
> gg




Well just arrived back in oz and catching up on some stuff and found
this article;
*Rudd praises rugby league 'religion'*

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/14/2570089.htm


----------



## awg (18 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Why can't these League players enjoy a normal sex life like anyone else without making animals of themselves?
> Do they really need to use brothels, given that there seems to be a  never-ending supply of women throwing themselves at them?
> Why would they rent a book when they can use the library!




Maybe our views are converging

real life free amateurs would be a lot more fun, and more economical

if only they would stop bleating after.

like i said b4, humans are a species of animal.

my prediction...more girls than ever will want to be "miss congenial"

i must say though, all this not something my 11 yr old footy mad son wants to hear about.


----------



## Calliope (18 May 2009)

Solly said:


> Well just arrived back in oz and catching up on some stuff and found
> this article;
> *Rudd praises rugby league 'religion'*
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/05/14/2570089.htm




One of the rites of that religion is gang banging.  I can't see Kevvy bonding with the boys. He's more into voyeurism and lap dancing.


----------



## Calliope (19 May 2009)

I have to admit that my assumption that the recent revelations about the bad behaviour of Rugby League players would damage the image of the game was wrong.

Premier Bligh and Rudd are astute politicians. Bligh's statement that RL players are "our heroes" and Rudd's statement that he and Premier Rees share "the religion of Rugby League", were made in the full knowledge that these apparent stupidities would boost their popularity in RL states.


----------



## investorpaul (19 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> I have to admit that my assumption that the recent revelations about the bad behaviour of Rugby League players would damage the image of the game was wrong.
> 
> Premier Bligh and Rudd are astute politicians. Bligh's statement that RL players are "our heroes" and Rudd's statement that he and Premier Rees share "the religion of Rugby League", were made in the full knowledge that these apparent stupidities would boost their popularity in RL states.




This makes me hate K Rudd even more.
Religon of rugby league = a religion for bogans and people who praise bad behaviour


----------



## MrBurns (19 May 2009)

investorpaul said:


> This makes me hate K Rudd even more.
> Religon of rugby league = a religion for bogans and people who praise bad behaviour




Rudd just makes you want to punch him in the face doesn't he ?


----------



## cuttlefish (19 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> I have to admit that my assumption that the recent revelations about the bad behaviour of Rugby League players would damage the image of the game was wrong.
> 
> Premier Bligh and Rudd are astute politicians. Bligh's statement that RL players are "our heroes" and Rudd's statement that he and Premier Rees share "the religion of Rugby League", were made in the full knowledge that these apparent stupidities would boost their popularity in RL states.





I think it gives some interesting insight into Rudds character - as possibly being willing to compromise his principals/moral standards for the sake of a bit of popularity.


----------



## spooly74 (19 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> I have to admit that my assumption that the recent revelations about the bad behaviour of Rugby League players would damage the image of the game was wrong.



It was only going to damage the individuals concerned. The recent publicity has nothing to do with the toughest sport in the world :



> Premier Bligh and Rudd are astute politicians



Yep, just looking after votes, after all, isn't Rugby League the most watched sport in Australia?



investorpaul said:


> Religon of rugby league = a religion for bogans and people who praise bad behaviour



Pure nonsense.


----------



## Kez180 (19 May 2009)

Lol I'd say AFL, union and the cricket would have more viewers than League


----------



## Prospector (19 May 2009)

spooly74 said:


> It was only going to damage the individuals concerned. The recent publicity has nothing to do with the toughest sport in the world :
> Yep, just looking after votes, after all, isn't Rugby League the most watched sport in Australia?




Ah no, rugby league is a sport played mainly in Qld and NSW, with a sprinkle in Vic and ACT.  And not shown on TV in the other states, unless it is State of Origin.  Thank god.


----------



## spooly74 (19 May 2009)

Kez180 said:


> Lol I'd say AFL, union and the cricket would have more viewers than League




Of course they would .... combined 
Seriously though, for a combined audience for TV and match attendance, I'm pretty sure League takes it out. I'll try and find the details.


----------



## spooly74 (19 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> Ah no, rugby league is a sport played mainly in Qld and NSW, with a sprinkle in Vic and ACT.  And not shown on TV in the other states, unless it is State of Origin.  Thank god.




You're forgetting NZ again  and there was an NRL game played down here earlier this year. You didn't go? 
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,24440221-2682,00.html
Rann paid for it too.


----------



## Julia (19 May 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> I think it gives some interesting insight into Rudds character - as possibly being willing to compromise his principals/moral standards for the sake of a bit of popularity.



Exactly.  Much as a while ago he apparently 'misspoke' by referring to a "sh!tstorm" .   I'm sure he did it on purpose in order to appear an ordinary bloke.

Very transparent behaviour which I doubt will fool too many.

He's a bit rattled by the fall in the polls:  defensive and almost nervous talking to Tony Jones last night.


----------



## investorpaul (19 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Exactly.  Much as a while ago he apparently 'misspoke' by referring to a "sh!tstorm" .   I'm sure he did it on purpose in order to appear an ordinary bloke.
> 
> Very transparent behaviour which I doubt will fool too many.
> 
> He's a bit rattled by the fall in the polls:  defensive and almost nervous talking to Tony Jones last night.




I agree K Rudd is concerned with one thing his popularity and winning the next election. It doesnt matter if he ruins the economy in the mean time (with his failed economic policies) or condones a sport full of bogans and criminals


----------



## Prospector (19 May 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Yep, just looking after votes, after all, isn't Rugby League the most watched sport in Australia?.



Nope, havent forgotten about NZ again :  Just responding to this statement and have you forgotten that people in NZ dont vote for Rudd?

According to the SMH the most watched sport (most highly attended) is AFL, followed by Horse racing.
The most watched was the AFL Grand Final, then the Tennis Open, then Rugby GF.

I am thinking Rudd is starting to show signs of real stress and lack of control; pity his poor minders.


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 May 2009)

investorpaul said:


> I agree K Rudd is concerned with one thing his popularity and winning the next election.




Yep and it amazes me that he trots around as if he can relate to footy fans.
Deep down I'm sure he's just another affluent snob relying on a supporter base of battlers. He would fit just as perfectly well within the Libs with his projected arrogance. Gotta love Rudd trotting around in his RM Williams boots. :

But Obama likes them! So all must be fine with the world's finances! 

http://australianboot.com/blog/2009/03/barack-obama-admires-kevin-rudds-rm-williams-boots/


----------



## spooly74 (19 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> Nope, havent forgotten about NZ again :  Just responding to this statement and have you forgotten that people in NZ dont vote for Rudd?



Oops .. got me



> According to the SMH the most watched sport (most highly attended) is AFL, followed by Horse racing.
> The most watched was the AFL Grand Final, then the Tennis Open, then Rugby GF.



Don't doubt attendance figures or specific events, but it seems NRL has an almost always higher average capital city free to air figure, and it absolutely smashes AFL on Pay TV. Not included are regional free to air figures, which the NRL dominates massively in NSW and Qld, by far the biggest markets.



> This year, Channel Nine's NRL coverage of rounds one to five attracted an average capital city audience of 761,000 per match, up 9 per cent on last season's average, based on OzTAM figures. Nine's second match on Friday night, up 42 per cent in Sydney and Brisbane on last year's average, is driving most of this increase.
> By comparison, the AFL's free-to-air audiences this year after three rounds (Seven's Friday night game 717,000; Ten's Saturday game 536,000 and evening game 774,000 and Seven's Sunday game 529,000) are down across all matches on the previous year, and well below 2007 figures. "Our NRL ratings are only in two capital cities [Sydney and Brisbane]," said Nine sports director Steve Crawley, drawing a difference with AFL figures which embrace five capitals.
> Regional ratings - the NRL has strong followings in rural NSW and Queensland - are not included in this year's figures.
> 
> ...







investorpaul said:


> ...... or condones a sport full of bogans and criminals



Pure nonsense ... again.


----------



## awg (19 May 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Yep and it amazes me that he trots around as if he can relate to footy fans.
> Deep down I'm sure he's just another affluent snob relying on a supporter base of battlers. He would fit just as perfectly well within the Libs with his projected arrogance. Gotta love Rudd trotting around in his RM Williams boots. :





Even though I am pretty keen to erase John Howards image from my memory banks, I seem to remember that he used to swan about and get his mug on TV at League games.

he definitely was a cricket tragic


----------



## Julia (19 May 2009)

awg said:


> Even though I am pretty keen to erase John Howards image from my memory banks, I seem to remember that he used to swan about and get his mug on TV at League games.
> 
> he definitely was a cricket tragic



Yes, but John Howard was a genuine cricket tragic.  Rudd's affection for football is contrived, purely aimed at creating the impression he's just an average bloke.


----------



## Julia (19 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> .
> 
> I am thinking Rudd is starting to show signs of real stress and lack of control; pity his poor minders.



I agree.  His last couple of interviews have been strident, tense affairs.
Bet the air was pretty blue when the Newspoll results came out.


----------



## Duckman#72 (19 May 2009)

spooly74 said:


> Of course they would .... combined
> Seriously though, for a combined audience for TV and match attendance, I'm pretty sure League takes it out. I'll try and find the details.




Hi Spooly

You should google "Australia's Battle of the Codes Statistics".

On every national level AFL comprehensively beats every other code. The only competition are "one off" events such as the Melbourne Cup.

Yes the NRL get good TV ratings in Sydney, but when less than 10,000 supporters turn up to games, it leaves a heap of people at home watching. As mentioned by me on another thread - the AFL are anticipating $1 billion in TV rights, when the free-to-air rights surface next time. Nine and Seven badly want the premier product and with new teams on Gold Coast and West Sydney the coverage for advertisers will be very enticing. 

Events such as the Matty Johns saga are death by a thousand cuts for the NRL. You turn women off and you in turn kill off the kids.

Duckman


----------



## spooly74 (20 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Yes the NRL get good TV ratings in Sydney, but when less than 10,000 supporters turn up to games, it leaves a heap of people at home watching.



Maybe thats where they want to be. When I lived in Sydney, I only made it to a handful of games. To be honest, for a game that lasts 80 mins, it's freezing, pissing down and you've got to make your way across town, watching it on the box with all the replays etc is not bad at all. 
Perhaps, that in itself is the reason for poor attendance, because the game clearly makes up the numbers on TV.


> As mentioned by me on another thread - the AFL are anticipating $1 billion in TV rights, when the free-to-air rights surface next time. Nine and Seven badly want the premier product and with new teams on Gold Coast and West Sydney the coverage for advertisers will be very enticing.
> 
> Events such as the Matty Johns saga are death by a thousand cuts for the NRL. You turn women off and you in turn kill off the kids.
> 
> Duckman




The stats I quoted above are from an article by Roy Masters. It would seem that the actions of a few are not going to ruin it for the majority who do right by their club, code and community.

It will be interesting to see whats offered when the new contracts come up.
Cheers.

_Double or nothing: Why the NRL TV rights are worth $1 billion_
http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/exp...worth-1-billion/2009/05/15/1242335881328.html


----------



## Duckman#72 (20 May 2009)

spooly74 said:


> The stats I quoted above are from an article by Roy Masters. It would seem that the actions of a few are not going to ruin it for the majority who do right by their club, code and community.
> 
> It will be interesting to see whats offered when the new contracts come up.
> Cheers.
> ...




Hi Spooly

LOL Roy Masters!! Nice piece of spin by old Roy. You only have to watch him on Offsiders on Sunday mornings to know that he is very paranoid about "the old enemy" in AFL.

If you enjoy his writing, take a look at his article titled....."AFL's Growth Plan a Code Violation", written 15 Feb 2009. Unfortunately all the good words he has spun in your story start to unravel when you read into his hidden agenda.

http://www.realfooty.com.au/news/ne...-code-violation/2008/02/15/1202760600565.html

Makes interesting reading in conjunction with your piece - at least he is trying to promote rugby league, even if he is being liberal with the truth. He is using the old Duckman line ........its not a lie if you truely believe it yourself. When it comes down to it - Roy wants to get the message out there that the value of the broadcast rights should be equal, because he knows that once Sydney and Gold Coast come on line and be successful - the NRL will NEVER, EVER be in a position again to even suggest such a thing. He is, in essence fighting for survival - and you can see that in his writings. He has positioned himself as a war correspondent!!!!

The problem I have with Roy these days is that he is more of a Anti-AFL mouthpiece than a Pro-NRL mouthpiece. Spends more time shouting down AFL and trying to put up the barriers in Sydney than praising the NRL.

Spooly you need to look behind the hidden agendas. Take the last Qld Election. Wasn't it amazing to see the LNP come out and be furiously against the redevelopment of the Gold Coast stadium for the AFL. The LNP were not going to have a bar of it. I wonder why that was? Maybe because the President of the Gold Coast soccer club is none other than Clive Palmer - yes the same Clive Palmer who is the biggest single contributor to the LNP coffers!!  

Anyway we are getting way off topic sorry - maybe we should start a new thread if either of us was so inclined.

Regards

Duckman


----------



## shag (20 May 2009)

about the only thing we will know for sure about the chch incident, is the pub is a ****ter, *well *on the outskirts of a cold, slow town. i'd put my players there if i wanted good control of them or to ironically try to keep them out of trouble. very cheap too.


----------



## awg (20 May 2009)

THE New Zealand woman at the centre of the Matthew Johns  group sex scandal is in hiding, "living in a nightmare" after her revelations.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25508648-421,00.html



I maintain that 4C are totally reprehensible for USING this woman.

Blind Freddie can see she is not psychiatrically fit for the INEVITABLE fallout

I am certain 4C would have known, and discussed this matter, but aired the program anyway.

Channel 9 will never forget


----------



## scanspeak (20 May 2009)

And in another case of women-behaving badly, the other top thread is about that drunken woman in Thailand who stole a bar mat, did a runner, and abused the chief of police. 
No sympathy for either of them.


----------



## Julia (20 May 2009)

Comment from Crikey.com on the Rugby League culture:



> 2. Code of silence: the murky mix of stars, sex and sports writers
> 
> FRIDAY 15 MAY 2009
> 
> ...


----------



## Calliope (21 May 2009)

The other side of the story;

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/natural-men-scolded-into-timidity-20090520-bfn3.html


----------



## awg (21 May 2009)

Sounds like Cronulla Football Club is rooted.


----------



## moXJO (21 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> The other side of the story;
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/natural-men-scolded-into-timidity-20090520-bfn3.html




Very good find Calliope, and something I agree with (Men being fed feminist agendas).


----------



## spooly74 (22 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Hi Spooly
> 
> Makes interesting reading in conjunction with your piece - at least he is trying to promote rugby league, even if he is being liberal with the truth. He is using the old Duckman line ........its not a lie if you truely believe it yourself. When it comes down to it - Roy wants to get the message out there that the value of the broadcast rights should be equal, because he knows that once Sydney and Gold Coast come on line and be successful - the NRL will NEVER, EVER be in a position again to even suggest such a thing. He is, in essence fighting for survival - and you can see that in his writings. He has positioned himself as a war correspondent!!!!
> 
> ...




G'day Duckman,

The only real significance or purpose of Roy's piece were the figures imo. There will always be bloody politics in the background and I'm happy to leave them there. However, the average captital city rating figures must be a worry for AFL. There was a yarn in the SMH a couple of days ago saying that the Swans v West Coast only attracted 71,000 on a Sat night. SBS beat TEN!

The foxtel figures in Roy's piece are probably a bit skewed, more people in Sydney have Fox than any other city by a long way, but never let that get in the way of a good statistic. 'What they reveal is suggestive, but what they conceal is vital'.

Appreciate your comments.


----------



## Prospector (23 May 2009)

I am trying to find the link for this (obtained from another source) but maybe this might debunk some of the myths:

Ah, found the link in time - this was released on the 20th - why wasnt this given more attention!

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2009/s2575275.htm
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25509170-5001021,00.html
_STATEMENT From ABC Four Corners

"Due to the high level of interest in this program, we would like to answer a number of questions that have arisen in response to the story.

Four Corners cannot control what is said in the outer reaches of the internet. We can correct some of the rumours and untruths being printed or broadcast in the mainstream media. In doing so we would also like to set the record straight on how the story came into being.

After the incident with the Cronulla Sharks occurred *in Christchurch in 2002, Clare was pursued by the media to tell her story; she was offered money by commercial media in Australia; she refused all requests to speak about it. The intervening years were marked by post traumatic stress disorder and its debilitating symptoms. *Two months ago, after we had begun researching a story on Rugby League, one of the members of the Cronulla Sharks tour to New Zealand told Four Corners about the events in Christchurch. Through our research we found Clare and asked her to take part in a program looking at off-field incidents in the NRL, attitudes to women in the culture of the game and the possibility for change. On that basis and knowing there were other women also speaking out, she agreed.


A few points of clarification:
# Clare was not paid for the interview. Payment is contrary to ABC Editorial guidelines. Her only requirement was that we protect her identity.

# Clare has not "boasted" about the fallout from the story. She is in hiding from the media, and has made no comment about the consequences of the story for others.

# The program was extensively researched based on police material, medical reports and the first- hand accounts of participants, not hearsay from people unconnected with the events.

# The New Zealand police have not made any adverse comment about the program. They have gone on the record to say that suggestion is completely untrue.

# Most of the activity that took place during the incident is not disputed. Players and staff gave graphic accounts to police of the sexual activity. *One player told police that at least one of them had climbed in through the bathroom window and crawled commando-style along the floor of the room.*

# We stated explicitly in the story that we were not focussing on the issue of consent in relation to the incident in Christchurch. We stated simply that Clare made a complaint to police. This was investigated at the time. The players say she consented and no charges were laid. The focus of this incident was the role of group sex in rugby league culture and the consequences for the woman involved.

# As far as Clare’s state of mind at the time is concerned, when she made a complaint to Christchurch police a few days after the incident, police noted her distress in their reports. She was in tears and found it very difficult to describe what had happened. Days later, the police also noted that some comments she made suggesting she was not distressed were a mechanism for coping with what had happened.

# *The manager of the hotel in Christchurch, Clare’s boss Keith Burgess, said that Clare was “a stable person” and “the last person to be involved in that kind of thing.” Clare says she doesn’t know the owner of the hotel who has recently made derogatory remarks about her.*

# The events later in the evening at the hotel are disputed. Player Daniel Ninness said last week that Clare was not distressed leaving the hotel. Clare told police in signed statements at the time that Ninness was kind to her and came to her rescue and she relied on him for support to get home. We attempted to contact Ninness prior to broadcast but were unsuccessful.

# Four Corners sought interviews with all the players and staff from the team that we were able to track down prior to broadcast. No one wanted to give an on-camera interview. Some spoke freely to Four Corners, others did not. We identified those people whose presence was confirmed by more than one firsthand account. They were Matthew Johns, Brett Firman and Paul Gallen, who told us he came into the room at the end.

# Matthew Johns spoke to Four Corners on numerous occasions about the events and we included comments he made in the story. He declined however to give an on-camera interview to Four Corners and answer more detailed questions about his role in the incident. We told Johns in advance of the broadcast that the young woman’s testimony was moving, that she had clearly suffered after the event and had been psychologically damaged by it.


Matthew Johns said before the broadcast went to air that he agreed the worst response to the program would be for anyone to go after the girl. Clare has recently contacted Four Corners asking that the media leave her in peace.

She said this:

I am being harassed in the most awful ways and what is being reported by jornalists (sic) is horrible and untrue. They have got people speaking of me that are not my friends or people I have never met. It feels like I am living in a nightmare. All I wanted to do was to make people aware of the culture and stop it happening to other girls.

# In relation to the Newcastle Knights section of the story, the Knights were frequently updated during the making of the story, up to and including just before broadcast. No comment from any one in any part of the program was taken out of context. Four Corners has received no complaint or question from anyone actually involved in the story suggesting the contrary._"

Nuff said!


----------



## Blissbomb (23 May 2009)

I can give you my own personal experiences why the NRL is in trouble at the moment. 
1. At school as a kid who was going around beating everyone up, it was the guys from the school football team. 
2. As a young man we would go down to the local bowls club or RSL for a meal for a quiet night only to be met by the half drunk local football team, swearing and being abusive to everyone and making tounge gestures to my girlfriend. 
3. How many times have we been away on holidays to have it totally ruined by the local footy club on their yearly drunken jaunt in the motel next door. 

I went to a local footy team grand final celebration once and I accidently bumped one of the guys as I was leaving the bar and I apologised and he said So You Should. I have never forgotten that. 

Football is in trouble, the media is after it and a lot of us are not going to come to their rescue!


----------



## bunyip (23 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> I am trying to find the link for this (obtained from another source) but maybe this might debunk some of the myths:
> 
> Ah, found the link in time - this was released on the 20th - why wasnt this given more attention!
> 
> ...




Nuff said?
Not really - what also needs to be said - again - is that for a week after the incident she was boasting about it and generally behaving like the cat that got the cream.
Then she does an about face and runs to the cops with a story about how badly she was treated against her will.
Well she's partly right - she _was_ badly treated by a bunch of bogan scumbags who are clearly deficient in moral code - but it seems highly unlikely that it was against her will.


----------



## nulla nulla (23 May 2009)

awg said:


> Sounds like Cronulla Football Club is rooted.




Given their attitude to the rest of society, that would be apt retribution would it not?


----------



## Duckman#72 (23 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Nuff said?
> Not really - what also needs to be said - again - is that for a week after the incident she was boasting about it and generally behaving like the cat that got the cream.
> Then she does an about face and runs to the cops with a story about how badly she was treated against her will.




I am not qualified in this area but I would think that it was not beyond the realms of possibility that the girl honestly didn't know how to react to the group sex scenario.

Isn't it possible that her "boasting" and "bravado" was part of the process for her attempting to convince herself that she was actually in control of the situation and that she wasn't violated. It may well have been a type of self-preservation mechanism kicking in. It might have been much easier for her to live with the fact that she was the instigator rather than a victim.

If you had never had sex with 10 guys in a room before, and if it did transpire like it has been reported - she can be forgiven for being a very confused girl after the event.

And as I have been saving ad nauseum (according to 4 Corners) - the reason for her coming forward is not money, it is not fame, it is nothing other than to out the story of NRL and the culture of sex. 

Duckman


----------



## bunyip (23 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> I am not qualified in this area but I would think that it was not beyond the realms of possibility that the girl honestly didn't know how to react to the group sex scenario.
> 
> Isn't it possible that her "boasting" and "bravado" was part of the process for her attempting to convince herself that she was actually in control of the situation and that she wasn't violated. It may well have been a type of self-preservation mechanism kicking in. It might have been much easier for her to live with the fact that she was the instigator rather than a victim.
> 
> ...




Duckman

I guess there are any number of possibilities that can't entirely be ruled out, including your suggestion that maybe she was a very confused girl after the event.
However, her boss and her work colleagues certainly didn't get the impression that she was in any way confused. They're adamant that she was on cloud nine over having tangoed with all those blokes.
If she was gang raped, I can't believe she wouldn't be showing clear signs of trauma immediately and in the days following.

We're not talking about one of the vestal virgins here - she's not exactly the sort of girl you'd take home to meet your mother!
She admits she initiated sex in a toilet with two players the previous night, and then agreed (possibly initiated) going to a room again with two blokes.
Given the fact that she was clearly tonguing for some action, it's not so unbelievable that she would have been a willing participant.


----------



## chrislp (23 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> I am not qualified in this area but I would think that it was not beyond the realms of possibility that the girl honestly didn't know how to react to the group sex scenario.
> 
> Isn't it possible that her "boasting" and "bravado" was part of the process for her attempting to convince herself that she was actually in control of the situation and that she wasn't violated. It may well have been a type of self-preservation mechanism kicking in. It might have been much easier for her to live with the fact that she was the instigator rather than a victim.
> 
> ...




Could she have liked everything that happened to her at the time & then she likes to crave attention so she boasts to her work colleagues & then to make even more attention she goes to the police?

You can question her motives/actions & make it suit your side of view (like I did above & like you have in your post) till the cows come home.

I wouldn't even go there as I am not a psychologist & I don't know if you are but it's pointless as the story has so many holes.


----------



## bunyip (24 May 2009)

chrislp said:


> Could she have liked everything that happened to her at the time & then she likes to crave attention so she boasts to her work colleagues & then to make even more attention she goes to the police?
> 
> You can question her motives/actions & make it suit your side of view (like I did above & like you have in your post) till the cows come home.
> 
> I wouldn't even go there as I am not a psychologist & I don't know if you are but it's pointless as the story has so many holes.




Yes, the discussion is as pointless as it is interesting and intriguing.....maybe that's why we discuss it!


----------



## Prospector (24 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> However, her boss and her work colleagues certainly didn't get the impression that she was in any way confused. .



Bunyip, it was her boss who said this:

_The manager of the hotel in Christchurch, Clare’s boss Keith Burgess, said that Clare was “a stable person” and “the last person to be involved in that kind of thing.” Clare says she doesn’t know the owner of the hotel who has recently made derogatory remarks about her.
_
The person purporting to be her boss, simply wasnt!

As I posted before I have worked with many rape (and other crime) victims and their behaviour is predictable in one sense - it is entirely unpredictable.  And oh yeah, those psych qualifications come in handy too!


----------



## Calliope (24 May 2009)

I think the whole concept of "men behaving badly " is that some men cannot accept their role in society that new-ageism has allocated for them.

There was an interesting essay on this subject in the Age last year by Elizabeth Farrelly,  titled;

*Wax or be Damned*

http://thebigchair.com.au/news/water-cooler/wax-or-be-damned.

This is an extract;


> This story might have nothing more than shock value, were it not for the obvious and unexplained feminisation of contemporary men. As Mal Meninga noted with disgust after a recent bloke-survey, "the nation's iconic hard Aussie blokes are a dying breed. We've become a nation of pansies."
> 
> Fifty years ago, an essay on men and maleness might have been a short work indeed, monosyllabic maybe, something like "ugh". Now, men examine man-ness with the same vanity and fervour that women have always brought to examining woman-ness.
> 
> ...


----------



## bunyip (24 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> Bunyip, it was her boss who said this:
> 
> _The manager of the hotel in Christchurch, Clare’s boss Keith Burgess, said that Clare was “a stable person” and “the last person to be involved in that kind of thing.” Clare says she doesn’t know the owner of the hotel who has recently made derogatory remarks about her.
> _
> ...




She was '_the last person to be involved in that kind of thing_' eh? LOL
That view of the girls character is completely at odds with the view expressed by her work colleagues, and also by the owner of the hotel at the time.

Keith Burgess makes this girl sound like a blushing virgin, rather than the over-sexed tramp who admits she initiated sex in a toilet with two players the previous night, and then agreed (possibly initiated) going to a room again with two blokes.
Not that this proves anything.....she probably just wanted to talk to them about the weather or drink tea with them or something!


----------



## Julia (24 May 2009)

We seem to have two hotel managers, with diametrically opposed opinions as to this girl's character and behaviour.

Is anyone else clear about which of these men were actually running the establishment at the time of the incident in question?


----------



## moXJO (24 May 2009)

What’s the background story on this girl? Has she done drugs or had some kind of history prior to this event. Has she had a lifestyle that contributed to her PTSD or whatever pysch term they call regret now? Really we know nothing about her. And imo digging and speculating won't do her any favors. 

We do know the idiot boofheads made a stupid decision that put the NRL in the spotlight. And will hopefully clear that element out of the game. The incident has hopefully brought about change, regardless of who or what she did. I don't think she deserves the victim tag or the harlot tag, and really it doesn't matter in the scheme of things anyway


----------



## Duckman#72 (25 May 2009)

In the Sharks game on Saturday night we saw a perfect example of the "Sweep it Under the Carpet" principle that is all pervasive in the NRL. 

For those of you who are unaware of the incident, during a tackle the Cronulla captain made offensive, racist remarks to an indigenous player on the opposing side. The player took immediate exception to the remark and was visibly upset and was quite obviously affronted by it. The player straight away advised the referee of the comment. 

In the AFL - the Cronulla captain would be made to stand accountable for the comments. These would including fines, penalties,suspensions and rehabilitation programs, if after reviewing and investigating the AFL found that an offensive remark was made. The point is - it is "out there". You cannot "unmake the comment" and a process needs to take place.  

Not in the NRL, where it is still possible to "unmake a comment". According to the NRL - it never happened. Unless a player makes an "official complaint" that is to go on "report" the NRL has no authority, desire or interest in the event. In this instance, even though the player had told the referee, when push came to shove and the player was asked if he wanted the incident to go on report, he backed down and said no. I can't believe that. *The pressure is put back on the player who is the victim of verbal abuse. *Sound familar?  

This was the system the AFL had in place in the early 1990's when Nicky Winmar came forward and outed one of Collingwoods players. The system was so ridiculous that it was changed to give more power to the authorities and to take the pressure off the accused and accusers. The NRL is at least 15 years behind in their policies.

It is a classic case of the way NRL likes to handle things concerning player behaviour - "don't mention the war", "forget about it", "let's move on", "it's been dealt with behind closed doors". 

It is ironic that this happened the very night the AFL was hosting "Dreamtime at the G", in honour of its indigenous players.

Duckman


----------



## bunyip (25 May 2009)

Julia said:


> We seem to have two hotel managers, with diametrically opposed opinions as to this girl's character and behaviour.
> 
> Is anyone else clear about which of these men were actually running the establishment at the time of the incident in question?




Julia

One of them apparently was the owner of the pub, and the other was the manager.
Clare claims she doesn't know the owner whose version agrees with the damning indictment of her character given by her work colleagues. 
On the other end of the scale we have the hotel manager Keith Burgess claiming that she was a stable person and the last one to be involved in that sort of thing.

Could she really have been a sweet and innocent girl, a paragon of virtue, pure as the driven snow? Possibly I was being too hard on her by stating that she's not the sort of girl I'd bring home to meet my mother. Maybe she really was mother-meeting material afterall.

But wait - could this virtuous maiden have been the same lusty lass who admits she fondly fornicated with two blokes in the oh so intimate confines of the hotel toilets!
And further, accompanied two men back to their room for - er, well gee whiz, it couldn't possibly have been for sex..............could it?? Heck no, not a virtuous girl like that! She probably just wanted to drink tea with them or watch TV or engage in some other equally innocuous activity.

It doesn't take a psychology degree - just a measure of good old common sense - to work out that Clare's version of events should be taken with a grain of salt.


----------



## Prospector (25 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Julia
> 
> One of them apparently was the owner of the pub, and the other was the manager.
> Clare claims she doesn't know the owner whose version agrees with the damning indictment of her character given by her work colleagues.
> ...




Assuming she did consent to sex with two people, that does not imply tacit consent to having sex with anyone else!

The psych degree is in reference to recognising PTSD by the way, not analysing the events of the situation.

My analysis - she most likely did agree to sex with the first two players when she followed them to the room.  Everything else is hallmark out of control behaviour.  The fact the she (may have) consented to sex with two of them but with no-one else, is sexual assault.  And that includes mistaken identity - if she consented to sex with A, but has sex with B thinking he was A, then that too, is sexual assault.

Would you be disappointed if your daughter behaved this way in consenting to sex with two men at once?  Of course you would.   But her behaviour, or call it morality, is irrelevant if she did not consent to sex with the other men.


----------



## Duckman#72 (25 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> But wait - could this virtuous maiden have been the same lusty lass who admits she fondly fornicated with two blokes in the oh so intimate confines of the hotel toilets!
> And further, accompanied two men back to their room for - er, well gee whiz, it couldn't possibly have been for sex..............could it?? Heck no, not a virtuous girl like that! She probably just wanted to drink tea with them or watch TV or engage in some other equally innocuous activity.




Bunyip I don't think anyone has an issue with the fact that Claire had sex with two men the night before. And I don't think anyone has an issue with the fact that she may well have expected and instigated sex with the two men from Cronulla. 

What I (and Prospector) do take exception to, is your assumption that past behaviour of one person (Claire), excuses the behaviour of the remainder of the Cronulla sharks. Based on your logic, sex trial cases will be considerably shorter in the future.

Lawyer "Have you ever previously engaged in a sex act with multiple partners?". 

Victim "Yes"

Lawyer "Your honor I ask that this case be dismissed under Bunyip's _Driven Snow Principle_. The accused obviously should have been expecting it, and was most probably asking for it."

One of the principles of investment is that "past performance is no indicator of future performance", doesn't it apply here as well?

Duckman


----------



## spooly74 (25 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> My analysis - she most likely did agree to sex with the first two players when she followed them to the room.  Everything else is hallmark out of control behaviour.  The fact the she (may have) consented to sex with two of them but with no-one else, is sexual assault.  And that includes mistaken identity -* if she consented to sex with A, but has sex with B thinking he was A, then that too, is sexual assault*.




I agee with your analysis, and I suspect the law does too.

Why then were no charges laid against the group?

How could these 'morally deficient knuckle dragging bogans' all have the same story of events that night?
I can't imagine they all managed to corroborate their stories which would have held under the pressure of a full police investigation.


----------



## bunyip (25 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Bunyip I don't think anyone has an issue with the fact that Claire had sex with two men the night before. And I don't think anyone has an issue with the fact that she may well have expected and instigated sex with the two men from Cronulla.
> 
> What I (and Prospector) do take exception to, is your assumption that past behaviour of one person (Claire), excuses the behaviour of the remainder of the Cronulla sharks.
> 
> ...




Ah now Duckman - So I'm assuming, am I, that past behaviour of one person (Claire), excuses the behaviour of the remainder of the Cronulla sharks?

Pity you didn't read through all my other posts on this thread before you compiled your post above.
Had you done so you would have seen that, far from attempting to excuse the behaviour of those Cronulla Sharks yobbos, what I have in fact done is condemn them and their actions in the strongest possible terms.
I assure you they disgust me as much as they disgust you.

You can easily avoid making such a mistake in future..........simply read well back in a thread so you get the true picture on the views of someone whose post or views you're about to criticise.

My contention, Duckman, is simply that Claire's claim of being an unwilling participant should be taken with a grain of salt, given that she was obviously a lusty little lass who was not above the kind of sexual behaviour that would make most of us cringe, and given further that she boasted openly about how she'd done more than half the blokes in the Cronulla team.


----------



## Prospector (25 May 2009)

spooly74 said:


> I agee with your analysis, and I suspect the law does too.
> 
> Why then were no charges laid against the group?
> 
> ...




Because they will only proceed to court if there is an opinion that the offenders will be found guilty, like a 90% chance.  Precious and insufficient resources and all that.  In terms of getting the evidence together, all they had to agree was that she said yes. Not hard to do.  There were what, 12 men present, and 1 girl; very hard to prove anything at all.  Just a nasty grubby scene really.


----------



## bunyip (25 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> It is a classic case of the way NRL likes to handle things concerning player behaviour - "don't mention the war", "forget about it", "let's move on", "it's been dealt with behind closed doors".
> 
> Duckman




Sounds remarkably similar to the past attitude of the Catholic church in relation to unsavoury behaviour by their priests.
At least the NRL gave the complainant the opportunity of making an official complaint that would have gone on report. That's more than the Catholic church used to do. 
Not that I in any way praise the attitudes or policies of the NRL.
Catholic church, NRL or whoever.....I agree with you Duckman that it's just not good enough.
As I said in an earlier post, one of the problems with NRL is that many of the officials are former players themselves, with similar attitudes and mentality to current players. 
Just as current players show poor judgement in what does or does not constitute bad behaviour both on and off the field, so also do the officials.


----------



## Prospector (25 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Sounds remarkably similar to the past attitude of the Catholic church in relation to unsavoury behaviour by their priests.
> .




On that point, am I right in saying the origins of NRL are in the working mans clubs?  In which case, a fair percentage might well be Catholic.


----------



## Duckman#72 (25 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Ah now Duckman - So I'm assuming, am I, that past behaviour of one person (Claire), excuses the behaviour of the remainder of the Cronulla sharks?
> 
> You can easily avoid making such a mistake in future..........simply read well back in a thread so you get the true picture on the views of someone whose post or views you're about to criticise.




Hi Bunyip

Sorry for the misunderstanding. I have been reading all your posts, although I must admit it has been heavy going. Between your contempt for the girl, and your open disgust for the Cronulla players, I must have missed your true position. Oh yeah - here it is.... 



bunyip said:


> Claire's claim of being an unwilling participant should be taken with a grain of salt, given that she was obviously a lusty little lass who was not above the kind of sexual behaviour that would make most of us cringe




So your not saying that she *did* willingly shag the Cronulla players , BUT....at the same time you wouldn't put it past her. My mistake then - I thought you were making conclusions about her sexual character, which suggested that it could partially excuse some of the actions of the Cronulla sharks. 

I'll put it down to snow blindness. 

Duckman


----------



## Duckman#72 (26 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Sounds remarkably similar to the past attitude of the Catholic church in relation to unsavoury behaviour by their priests.
> At least the NRL gave the complainant the opportunity of making an official complaint that would have gone on report. That's more than the Catholic church used to do.
> Not that I in any way praise the attitudes or policies of the NRL.
> Catholic church, NRL or whoever.....I agree with you Duckman that it's just not good enough.
> ...




Wow - this thread just gets better!!!

A juicy sex case, media celebrities, justice denied?, justice granted?, coverups, a public sacking, an ABC conspiracy theory concerning deflection from the budget, AND...........about 200 posts ago I think I spoke to Yoda and I was proclaimed a "Professor". But wait there's more. The obligatory Catholics have had the temerity to raise their ugly heads. Bloody priests!!! 

Yes I agree with you Bunyip - the NRL has a better reporting system in place than the Catholic Church. Thankyou for drawing my attention to the comparison. 

Yes Bunyip - I agree with you. The NRL stance is still not good enough.

Duckman


----------



## bunyip (26 May 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Hi Bunyip
> 
> Sorry for the misunderstanding. I have been reading all your posts, although I must admit it has been heavy going. Between your contempt for the girl, and your open disgust for the Cronulla players, I must have missed your true position.
> 
> ...




Yes Duckman - that pretty well sums up my attitude towards the girl. None of us will ever know for sure whether she willingly bonked all those players. But I wouldn't put it past her, given the unsavoury toilet tryst that she openly admits to instigating, her act of going back to their room with a couple of them, and finally her open boasting about her exploits.
Wanton women engage in some very unsavoury behaviour - and lusty Claire was _*definitely*_ a wanton woman.
For every wanton woman there's at least one or more ballsy blokes who willingly accommodate her. The Cronulla players are as deserving of scathing criticism as Claire herself is.

Thanks for the apology Duckman, but really it wasn't necessary.
Yes, it _*can*_ be heavy going wading through hundreds of posts to find all those belonging to one individual. It's easy to miss someone's true meaning.


----------



## bunyip (26 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> On that point, am I right in saying the origins of NRL are in the working mans clubs?  In which case, a fair percentage might well be Catholic.




Prospector - I don't know where Rugby League originated.
Perhaps you should fire off an email to Kev Rudd - maybe he can throw some light on the subject, given his open declaration of embracing the Rugby League 'religion'.

While you're at it, why not suggest that he and his government mates form their own Rugby League team for fitness, bonding, and just to relax after a hard day in Parliament recklessly splashing taxpayers money around.

Let's see........Rudd and Swan could be in the front row where they'll get knocked around as much as possible. 
Goofy gawky Peter Garrett could be at fullback or out on the wing so that we see him as little as possible. 
Lindsay Tanner and Tony Burke, the minister for agriculture, don't seem like bad blokes, so we'll put them at half back and five-eighth where they'll be the play makers who get most of the credit for all the good moves.
And as for the position of hooker....well, I reckon Julia Gillard is a natural to fill that spot!


----------



## cuttlefish (26 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Yes Duckman - that pretty well sums up my attitude towards the girl. None of us will ever know for sure whether she willingly bonked all those players. But I wouldn't put it past her, given the unsavoury toilet tryst that she openly admits to instigating, her act of going back to their room with a couple of them, and finally her open boasting about her exploits.
> Wanton women engage in some very unsavoury behaviour - and lusty Claire was _*definitely*_ a wanton woman.
> For every wanton woman there's at least one or more ballsy blokes who willingly accommodate her. The Cronulla players are as deserving of scathing criticism as Claire herself is.




It sounds like you are making a subjective character judgement on the girl because of her apparent willingness to have sex with two of the players during the early stages of what was a long encounter.

You don't seem to be able to accept that regardless of your opinion on her character, that from a legal standpoint, consent needed to be given at every stage of the encounter and from an ethical/moral standpoint the girl (being a living, breathing, feeling human being and not a blowup doll) needed to be treated with respect at every stage of the encounter by all the participants.

Johns has admitted to apologising to the girl afterwards for the other players coming into the room - if she had a rip-roaring time why would he be apologising to her?  Clearly he was aware that she hadn't enjoyed parts of the experience.   Given that he was the one that brought her back to the room in the first place, he had a responsibility to her (who was 11 years younger than him) to ensure that she was safe and well looked after.  Instead he placed her in a very difficult, one sided and unfair situation.  

There are numerous reasons why she may have reacted the way she did when presented with the situation that occurred both at the time and in the days afterwards - but regardless its a disgusting abuse of trust on John's part in my opinion.

If you look at how males react to a bad situation (e.g. being injured in a violent fight or in an accident while engaging in a high risk sporting activity) its not uncommon for them to speak with 'bravado' about the incident - but that does not mean they have not been traumatised by it - and for some its often a coping mechanism and masks their actual trauma/fear - some don't even realise themselves that they are suffering from trauma till weeks, months or even years later.  Its completely plausible that this girl also reacted in a similar way to her experience.


----------



## bunyip (26 May 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> It sounds like you are making a subjective character judgement on the girl because of her apparent willingness to have sex with two of the players during the early stages of what was a long encounter.
> 
> You don't seem to be able to accept that regardless of your opinion on her character, that from a legal standpoint, consent needed to be given at every stage of the encounter and from an ethical/moral standpoint the girl (being a living, breathing, feeling human being and not a blowup doll) needed to be treated with respect at every stage of the encounter by all the participants.
> 
> ...




Of course I can accept that from a legal standpoint, the girls consent needed to be given at every stage of the encounter.
I'm simply saying that there is some doubt as to whether she did or did not give that consent.
Therefore, given that we don't really know, and also that she was a girl of loose morals, we cannot simply take her word for it when she claims her consent wasn't given.
From a legal standpoint, a court wouldn't take her word for it either. That doesn't mean that a court or I would necessarily reject her claim, just that we'd take it with a grain of salt in the absence of confirming evidence.

I can also accept the possibility of her bragging about the incident as a mechanism to cope with her trauma or mask her fear. Just as I can accept the other possibility that she was all in favour of her encounter with the footballers, and she boasted about it because she really was on cloud nine and feeling pretty pleased with herself for seducing so many blokes.

Again I make the point that, because we don't know for sure what happened, and never will because no proof is available, the only realistic position we can take is to say maybe she's telling the truth, maybe she isn't, therefore we should take her with a grain of salt, same as a court would do.

Incidentally Cuttlefish, you don't need to convince me that the behaviour of Mat Johns was reprehensible....I've made my feelings very clear by strongly condemning him and his yobbo team mates in several of my posts.


----------



## cuttlefish (26 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Therefore, given that we don't really know, *and also that she was a girl of loose morals*, we cannot simply take her word for it when she claims her consent wasn't given.




Why does the fact she consents to sex with two people at the same time make her a girl of 'loose morals'  - thats a character judgement that you are making and doesn't necessarily negate the validity of her account.  Why should any higher level of credibility be placed on the accounts of the hotel owner or her workmates - none of whom were there.  And as I've already stated - John's has admitted he apologised to her afterwards - that conveys that he felt remorse about the way she was treated - so regardless of the legality of it from, a moral/ethical standpoint there's a very high probability based on the first hand accounts of what occurred that she was mistreated.  

Just the act of men entering a room uninvited where she was having sex with two other people is already a violation of her privacy and shows a lack of respect.


----------



## Prospector (26 May 2009)

Hey Cuttlefish and Bunyip, I think you are really both on the same track, but Bunyip is a little quicker to call 'morality police' than you and I both are.  And his view probably reflects the 'average person', who are the ones who would sit in judgement on a jury.  Which is most likely the reason why this was never taken to court - a 'reasonable person' might conclude that by consenting to sex to two people then she was also consenting to sex to others.  It would take a strong direction from the Judge to remind the Jury that consenting to sex to two people does not mean consenting to several; but given the circumstances, even though the girl was most likely telling the truth, the Jury might still call it all as consensual.  

I suspect that the girl, if she was suffering PTSD, would be totally devastated by a not guilty verdict.  And that would be another factor in not taking this to court.

A recent child abuse case in Adelaide was recently terminated because the victim became suicidal.  The teacher involved then declared 'See I am innocent!'    In this situation though, no-one believed the teacher.


----------



## bunyip (26 May 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Why does the fact she consents to sex with two people at the same time make her a girl of 'loose morals'  - thats a character judgement that you are making and doesn't necessarily negate the validity of her account.  Why should any higher level of credibility be placed on the accounts of the hotel owner or her workmates - none of whom were there.




She hooks up with two blokes she doesn't know from a bar of soap, and entices them into the hotel toilet where she has sex with them.
Cuttlefish, perhaps that doesn't mark her as a girl of loose morals in your estimation, but it certainly does in mine.
I could list other factors that also point to her lack of morality, but if you haven't already picked up on them yourself then far be it from me to point them out to you.

And I didn't say her loose morals necessarily negate the validity of her account, only that it gives reasonable grounds on which to question the truth of what she says.
On that basis I'll stick with my view that we should take her account of things with a grain of salt. Just as we should take the account of the footballers with a grain of salt. 
Both she and they were a sordid little bunch of people involved in a sordid little series of sexual adventures.
None of them strike me as people of good character whose testimony is particularly believable.

As you've pointed out, the hotel owner and the girls work colleagues weren't there. Nor have they claimed there were. Their account is only of the girl bragging about her conquests.


----------



## moXJO (26 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> I suspect that the girl, if she was suffering PTSD, would be totally devastated by a not guilty verdict.  And that would be another factor in not taking this to court.
> 
> .





That or she is full of it. I know a lot of incidents of innocent people who were accused of rape. One was a friend who told me she was raped by this guy only to start dating him 8 hours later
I'm not saying that applies here, but just saying some women are not always the victims they make out to be. 

 We don't know fully what went on in that room. We don't even know if consent was given to the other players or not. 
As for John’s apology we don't even know what that was for. For all we know he felt guilty about cheating on his wife and didn't want to get caught.


----------



## Prospector (26 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> As you've pointed out, the hotel owner and the girls work colleagues weren't there. Nor have they claimed there were. Their account is only of the girl bragging about her conquests.




No, it is a step removed from that.  It is not her account at all, it is them saying what she said.  Hearsay.  Inadmissable.


----------



## cuttlefish (26 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> She hooks up with two blokes she doesn't know from a bar of soap, and _entices_ them into the hotel toilet where she has sex with
> them.




'entices' them   - I'm pretty sure they would have gone in of their own free will - its possible they even enticed her in there - or its possible it didn't happen at all.

The story about her being with the other players in a toilet the night before is a third hand account by the sounds of it (the owner quoting what other staff said she said).   Could just be a load of chk chk boom for all we know.

(article here: http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5570830/group-sex-woman-other-players).


----------



## moXJO (26 May 2009)

Must have been a slow news day




> RedHotPie.com.au relationship expert Geoff Barker said the survey suggested Australian women were more sexually liberated than men.
> 
> "I thought you would find it skewed towards guys, but the reality is women are pursuing group sex just as much," he said.
> 
> ...



http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25541220-29277,00.html


----------



## bunyip (26 May 2009)

Prospector said:


> No, it is a step removed from that.  It is not her account at all, it is them saying what she said.  Hearsay.  Inadmissable.




I didn't say it was her account - I said it was their account of the girl bragging about her conquests.


----------



## bunyip (26 May 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> 'entices' them   - I'm pretty sure they would have gone in of their own free will - its possible they even enticed her in there - or its possible it didn't happen at all.
> 
> The story about her being with the other players in a toilet the night before is a third hand account by the sounds of it (the owner quoting what other staff said she said).   Could just be a load of chk chk boom for all we know.
> 
> (article here: http://au.news.yahoo.com/a/-/latest/5570830/group-sex-woman-other-players).




You seem determined to defend the integrity of this bimbo and give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you just dislike Rugby League players more than you dislike bimbos. 
Me - I regard both the girl and the League players as low-life people and I can't say I feel particularly sorry for any of them. 
None of it would have happened if they were decent people who were above conducting themselves like gutter rats.


----------



## cuttlefish (27 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> You seem determined to defend the integrity of this bimbo and give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you just dislike Rugby League players more than you dislike bimbos.
> Me - I regard both the girl and the League players as low-life people and I can't say I feel particularly sorry for any of them.
> None of it would have happened if they were decent people who were above conducting themselves like gutter rats.




Yes thats right I will give a 19 year old girl that was gangbanged by men up to 11 years older than her the benefit of the doubt and I don't feel the need to further denegrate, insult or label her.  For that I don't apologise.


----------



## Calliope (27 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> None of it would have happened if they were decent people who were above conducting themselves like gutter rats.




bunyip

We shouldn't lose sight of the fact that Mr Rudd has declared R L to be a religion. 

Non-believers may find it disgusting that women can kneel to worship their favourite disciple in a nightclub toilet. It seems like a strange rite, but religious worship takes many forms.

These strange rites, including mass orgies, practised by the R L players apparently have the blessing of Bishop Rudd and High Priestess Bligh.


----------



## cuttlefish (27 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Maybe you just dislike Rugby League players more than you dislike bimbos.




No I don't have any general dislike for Rubgy League players but I do dislike the culture in rugby league that tended to close ranks around their players to cover up incidents like this - that culture appears to be changing.  

I don't isolate this sort of behaviour to league players, men from any walk of life are capable of bad behaviour, but the profile of these incidents and the way they have been handled in the past (particularly the blame the women mentality) has conveyed the wrong message to impressionable young men imo.  

I think the league should be commended for the types of steps that are being taken at the Newcastle club, as shown in the four corners report, unfortunately it will take them a while to get all of the participants in and around the sport to make the cultural shift they are trying to acheive.

I do think it would send a bad message to young men for them to not realise that John's made a variety of errors  in the situation that occured. I don't isolate that to being unfaithful to his wife. From my perspective he also abused a position of power and trust with someone considerably younger than him by befriending her and then knowingly bringing her into a high risk situation and then, by his own admission, leaving her to it while he left the room and then apologising to her afterwards.

I have little doubt that he understands the errors of his ways at the time and he's publicly had the courage to come out and speak about it and has also stated that it would serve no purpose to denegrate the women.

Why couldn't it have just been left at that - forgive the bloke, apologise to the girl and move on.  But no instead the 'old school' culture (spear headed by twits like Alan Jones) has to go back to the 'slander the hussy' mentality that sends the message to young men that its ok to mistreat women that enter these situations.   

I'm not about to stick my head in the sand and say that group sex doesn't occur and if you think its isolated to boofhead league players and gutter dwelling harlots then you're living an illusion.  

In my view its more socially productive to acknowledge that it does occur and that both men and women can be willing participants - and to educate both men and women on appropriate behaviour when engaging in sex - be it one-on-one, as a group, standing on their heads while singing pop songs, or however they choose to do it.


----------



## bunyip (27 May 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Yes thats right I will give a 19 year old girl that was gangbanged by men up to 11 years older than her the benefit of the doubt and I don't feel the need to further denegrate, insult or label her.  For that I don't apologise.




Nobody is asking you to apologise. But rather than saying she _*was*_ gangbanged, a more fair-minded approach would be to say that maybe she was and maybe she wasn't. No matter what factors point to the guilt or innocence of anyone, that fact is that you really don't know and neither do I or anyone else except those who were actually involved in the incident.


----------



## cuttlefish (27 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Nobody is asking you to apologise. But rather than saying she _*was*_ gangbanged, a more fair-minded approach would be to say that maybe she was and maybe she wasn't. No matter what factors point to the guilt or innocence of anyone, that fact is that you really don't know and neither do I or anyone else except those who were actually involved in the incident.




My use of the term gangbang was to describe group sex involving multiple men with one women, not necessarily to imply rape.

You continually revert to the summation that we don't know exactly what happened yet at the same time you also continue to label and characterise the women in a denegrating way - this seems inconsistent.  

My view is that most 19 year old girls aren't emotionally mature enough to handle the type of encounter that she found herself in and most 30 year old men should be well aware of this.


I think we're close to moving around in circles.  My post one above this one sums up my overall view on the situation reasonably well.


----------



## bunyip (27 May 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> I'm not about to stick my head in the sand and say that group sex doesn't occur and if you think its isolated to boofhead league players and gutter dwelling harlots then you're living an illusion.




I'm no so naive that I believe this sort of behaviour is limited to boofhead League players and harlots.
I'm not living under any illusions. But perhaps you are if you can't see that this sordid incident qualifies as gutter behaviour.

Yes, I've labelled and characterised the woman, and also the Rugby League players. Although we don't know all the facts, any fool can see that both parties are trashy people whose sexual behaviour is sordid, to say the least.


----------



## cuttlefish (27 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> I'm no so naive that I believe this sort of behaviour is limited to boofhead League players and harlots.
> I'm not living under any illusions. But perhaps you are if you can't see that this sordid incident qualifies as gutter behaviour.
> 
> Yes, I've labelled and characterised the woman, and also the Rugby League players. Although we don't know all the facts, any fool can see that both parties are trashy people whose sexual behaviour is sordid, to say the least.




Ok so you view the behaviour as trashy, I think we've established that in your numerous posts. Thus you also judge anyone that participates in that sort of behaviour to be of poor moral standing and a 'trashy individual'.  

Beyond that I'm not really sure what your point is.  

Are you prepared to concede that it is highly possible the girl was mistreated and is deserving of sympathy, or not?  Or does the fact that she is (in your view) of bad character mean that any mistreatment she received is her fault and she is not deserving of any sympathy?


----------



## bunyip (27 May 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Are you prepared to concede that it is highly possible the girl was mistreated and is deserving of sympathy, or not?  Or does the fact that she is (in your view) of bad character mean that any mistreatment she received is her fault and she is not deserving of any sympathy?




Certainly I'm willing to concede that it's possible the girl was mistreated against her will. And if that was in fact the case, then irrespective of her trashy character she not only deserves sympathy, but also compensation from those who mistreated her.

What's not clear is whether the treatment she received was against her will, or whether she was a willing participant. 
The League players say she was a willing participant, she says she wasn't, but only after a week of boasting that she was. 
You've chosen to give her the benefit of the doubt by believing her version.

Now let me ask *you* a question.....
Are you willing to concede the possibility that the League players have been wrongly accused of forcing themselves on the girl? 
And if they have been wrongly accused, are they deserving of any sympathy or not?

Or does the fact that they are of bad character (in your view at least - as indicated by your derogatory remarks about them) mean that the entire incident was their fault and they are not deserving of the benefit of the doubt, let alone any sympathy?


----------



## Julia (27 May 2009)

The following is from columnist Rebecca Sparrow, in the "Sunday Mail", Qld.



> Like many households, we watched the Four Corners "Code of Silence" story with sadness and revulsion.  The program detailed a grubby culture operating in some National Rugby League clubs.  Any male sport adopting a "boys will be boys" culture needs to have a reality check.  Players found to be involved in any type of sexual assault should be sacked.
> Charges need to be laid.
> 
> But what of the issue of consent?  Sports stars who exploit the adoration of young star struck fans by encouraging them to behave in a way that is demeaning should be held accountable.  But the woman consented?  It doesn't matter.  She has been exploited.  This type of behaviour may not be illegal, but it's morally bereft.
> ...


----------



## awg (27 May 2009)

heres one for youse all

note the impeccable source

AUSTRALIAN women are as keen as men to take part in consensual group sex - and they initiate it almost as often, according to a controversial online survey.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25542379-953,00.html


----------



## moXJO (27 May 2009)

Julia said:


> The following is from columnist Rebecca Sparrow, in the "Sunday Mail", Qld.




This columnist is living in the past. Sexual attitudes have changed. Women have just as much right to enjoy sex however they want and not be judged, just as men do. And this is what is happening. Who is this idiot to play the moral police? Withholding sex to get an upper hand of those evil males
Great philosophy...
"humiliating sex scenarios "

"never demean themselves for male attention"

"Young women need to start taking back their power"

"sex - in whatever form it takes - quickly becomes demeaning when there is an imbalance of power"

"degrade and humiliate themselves "

Sounds like someone has an issue by equating sex and power in such a combative way. Go Go feminazi

Just because you enjoy whatever you enjoy, does not mean you do not have self respect. Nor does it mean you are a sex slave or that you are not confident in yourself. 

It is people like this that seem to like to demean, and belittle people that may actually be enjoying their lives. At least until stuck up prudes want to interfere.


----------



## cuttlefish (27 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Or does the fact that they are of bad character (in your view at least - as indicated by your derogatory remarks about them) mean that the entire incident was their fault and they are not deserving of the benefit of the doubt, let alone any sympathy?




Firstly I don't recall making derogatory remarks about league players in general in this thread, and no I don't have a generic view that league players are of bad character.  I've been critical about how the NRL/league, and some of the clubs have handled situations like this. I'm also specifically critical of some of the behaviour reported in this incident and have explained my reasons for it and that viewpoint is unlikely to change.  



bunyip said:


> Now let me ask *you* a question.....
> Are you willing to concede the possibility that the League players have been wrongly accused of forcing themselves on the girl?
> And if they have been wrongly accused, are they deserving of any sympathy or not?



Yes if a player is wrongly accused of forcing themselves on someone then they are deserving of sympathy, and I also would concede that its entirely possible that no 'force' was used in any kind of legal sense in this situation.

Whether or not 'force' was used does not mean that nothing wrong was done and that there aren't significant lessons to be learnt out of it that can be used to educate the next generation of players (and men in general) about what is and isn't approprate in terms of behaviour and respect.  

My viewpoint is that if you examine this situation there are escalating breaches of trust and privacy that slowly stripped away every ounce of personal power that the girl had in this situation and led to her participating in something she either regretted at the time or afterwards.

There are definitely good lessons for young women in this but regardless of her behaviour I still hold the men involved more accountable - given their age, numbers and status, they were in the position of power from start to finish.


----------



## Duckman#72 (27 May 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> You continually revert to the summation that we don't know exactly what happened yet at the same time you also continue to label and characterise the women in a denegrating way - this seems inconsistent.




I think you need to read the whole thread Cuttlefish - if you had, _surely_ you would not have even suggested this to Bunyip.  



cuttlefish said:


> I think we're close to moving around in circles.




I agree. This thread has run its course now, due in part to some of the remaining contributors trying to sit on every side of the table at the same time.

Duckman


----------



## bunyip (27 May 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Firstly I don't recall making derogatory remarks about league players in general in this thread, and no I don't have a generic view that league players are of bad character.  I've been critical about how the NRL/league, and some of the clubs have handled situations like this. I'm also specifically critical of some of the behaviour reported in this incident and have explained my reasons for it and that viewpoint is unlikely to change.
> 
> 
> Yes if a player is wrongly accused of forcing themselves on someone then they are deserving of sympathy, and I also would concede that its entirely possible that no 'force' was used in any kind of legal sense in this situation.




Your reference to 'boofhead league players' is a derogatory term and is a clear indication of what you think of them. 
I agree with you incidentally - they are indeed boofheads and worse.

If you're going to be _*'specifically critical of some of the behaviour reported in this incident' *_(your words) then you want to make damn sure that it's not selective criticism of one party, while you let the other party off scott free. Remember that some of the behaviour reported in this incident relates to the girl, not just to the League players.

OK, so you accept that the players deserve some sympathy if they're wrongly accused of forcing themselves on the girl. 
Now you need to adopt the fair-minded view that it's entirely possible that they are in fact being wrongly accused. 
To give all the benefit of the doubt to the girl is not a realistic or fair-minded approach on your part. You don't know for certain what happened, none of us do, except that some quite unsavoury sexual behaviour occurred.
There's no hard evidence that anything illegal took place. If there was, there would have been charges laid with subsequent court proceedings.
Take it all with a grain of salt, both the footballers version and hers.


----------



## Julia (27 May 2009)

moXJO said:


> This columnist is living in the past. Sexual attitudes have changed. Women have just as much right to enjoy sex however they want and not be judged, just as men do. And this is what is happening. Who is this idiot to play the moral police? Withholding sex to get an upper hand of those evil males
> Great philosophy...
> "humiliating sex scenarios "
> 
> ...



Ah, thank you moXJO.   I wondered if I was being unreasonable in thinking the same thing.  I guess she's appealing to her established readership.



cuttlefish said:


> Yes if a player is wrongly accused of forcing themselves on someone then they are deserving of sympathy, and I also would concede that its entirely possible that no 'force' was used in any kind of legal sense in this situation.



Cuttlefish, why only "in any kind of legal sense"?   Is it quite out of the question in your mind that some women are genuinely attracted to this sort of group activity?

Clearly you wouldn't find it appealing.  Neither would I.  But I'm entirely aware that quite a number of women find it every bit as much, um, fun as do the blokes.   I just don't quite get why you are so absolutely certain that this was not the case in this instance.

As Bunyip has said repeatedly: no one here knows what happens.
Perhaps her boyfriend found out about it a few days later, and she realised how silly she had been, therefore went to the police.  

I don't know, and no longer really care.


----------



## scanspeak (27 May 2009)

In the Tracy Grimshaw interview, Johns said the girl was calling each player forth for a turn during the encounter. 
If that is true, (and it correlates with her subsequent statements to work colleagues), then they could rightly assume that she was giving consent throughout the encounter.

By the way, some people like to be spanked, whipped, tied up, or indulge in "gangbangs".
Apparently being dominated turns them on.


----------



## StockPiles (27 May 2009)

GOD, look at the name of this website "Aussie Stock Forums"

What THE ??? FOOTBALL ? NRL ? THESE MEATHEADS/MORONS/HOONS and/or LOUTS  Making their way to this web site ?

How disturbing, try taking discussions about Friggin' Football to another more relevent forum !

If all men adopted the culture of living as close to our instincts as NRL players, we would be having sex with every female who smiled at us and picking fights with every male who challenges us. 

How about we promote the ABC, Classical music, STOCKS AND SHARES and band together to poo poo NRL and all its disgusting culture.


----------



## cuttlefish (27 May 2009)

bunyip said:


> Your reference to 'boofhead league players' is a derogatory term and is a clear indication of what you think of them.
> I agree with you incidentally - they are indeed boofheads and worse.




I thought it was obvious that my use of the term 'boofhead' and the term 'gutter dwelling harlot' were both in a sentence that was intended to paraphrase your characterisations of the parties involved - I should have 'quoted' it.  It wasn't a reflection of my opinion of league players - though plenty of them are boofheads no doubt about it - but plenty aren't as well.

I'll respond to the rest later in a response to Julia's question and hopefully that will be it from me on this topic.


----------



## StockPiles (27 May 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> I thought it was obvious that my use of the term 'boofhead' and the term 'gutter dwelling harlot' were both in a sentence that was intended to paraphrase your characterisations of the parties involved - I should have 'quoted' it.  It wasn't a reflection of my opinion of league players - though plenty of them are boofheads no doubt about it - but plenty aren't as well.
> 
> I'll respond to the rest later in a response to Julia's question and hopefully that will be it from me on this topic.




GREAT IDEA !!, Move on to chat about STOCKS AND SHARES !!!! Not this moronic game !


----------



## MS+Tradesim (27 May 2009)

StockPiles said:


> GREAT IDEA !!, Move on to chat about STOCKS AND SHARES !!!! Not this moronic game !




This is the General Chat sub-forum of ASF. Should you wish to only discuss shares you might feel more at home in this area.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4


----------



## cuttlefish (28 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Cuttlefish, why only "in any kind of legal sense"?   Is it quite out of the question in your mind that some women are genuinely attracted to this sort of group activity?
> 
> Clearly you wouldn't find it appealing.  Neither would I.  But I'm entirely aware that quite a number of women find it every bit as much, um, fun as do the blokes.   I just don't quite get why you are so absolutely certain that this was not the case in this instance.




I thought I'd made it clear in earlier posts that I'm well aware that there are men _and women _ that enjoy engaging in group sex.  I don't have any great issue with what consenting adults do as long as they are all enjoying themselves. To me the problem arises when men assume that a women making the decision to engage in group sex is not worthy of any respect and thus open season for any kind of treatment regardless of how disrespectul it is or whether she is enjoying it or not.

There are many reasons I believe she was mistreated, some of the main ones are listed below:

* her own emotional account of her trauma on the actual four corners episode was quite believable imo  - i.e. I believe that the incident caused her trauma
* The comments from the police officer that investigated the case
* John's extremely emotional reaction, and his and the other players unwillingness to speak freely about the details of what occurred (he continually avoided specific questions from Grimshaw except to say that the girl was a willing participant but when pressed for details wouldn't provide further information).
* The age of the girl - she was considerably younger (11 years younger) than Johns.  I don't believe a 19 year old is emotionally equipped to handle the situation she was placed into and John's knowingly placed her in that situation and would have been well aware that she was considerably younger than him.
* The fact that the other players initially entered the room uninvited - regardless of how she subsequently reacted this is an invasion of privicay that would not be considered acceptable for a girl engaging in one-on-one sex so there is no reason it should be considered acceptable just because she was engaged in sex with two men.
* The fact that John's by his own admission apologised to her afterwards for the other players coming in - since when do people apologise after consenting sex?

Whether what occurred was legal rape or not I don't know or really care - but from a moral perspective there are many things that appear to have involved classic predatory behaviour.


----------



## Boggo (28 May 2009)

The rugby league louts have nothing on that inbred pommy bastion known as Northern Ireland.

Your team loses so you just go and kick someone to death.

Not sure that we want those fine upstanding blue blooded aristocrats over here.

The mad paddies should have booted them all out when they had a chance.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/battered-and-bruised-widow-says-life-is-over-1751758.html


----------



## StockPiles (28 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> This is the General Chat sub-forum of ASF. Should you wish to only discuss shares you might feel more at home in this area.
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=4





What The ?? General Chat "sub-Forum" ? Talk about split focus ! This crap gets posted with all the stock market stuff on the home page .. exposing this Football crap with stocks and shares on the same page is just nonsensical.

Meh nuts to humans and their incompetence !


----------



## MS+Tradesim (28 May 2009)

StockPiles said:


> What The ?? General Chat "sub-Forum" ? Talk about split focus ! This crap gets posted with all the stock market stuff on the home page .. exposing this Football crap with stocks and shares on the same page is just nonsensical.
> 
> Meh nuts to humans and their incompetence !





It's not that hard. Here's a map to help you.


----------



## moXJO (28 May 2009)

MS+Tradesim said:


> It's not that hard. Here's a map to help you.




LOL


----------



## bunyip (2 June 2009)

OK Cuttlefish....You believe the girl was mistreated - even though you admit you don't know - and you've outlined the reasons for your belief.

It could be argued that any woman in a group sex situation is being mistreated, even if she consents to it.

The question in this incident is whether she was a willing participant, or whether the footballers forced her into it. You've  been a staunch defender of her integrity, and you've outlined your reasons for believing that she didn't consent.
Others have put forward convincing arguments that suggest she did consent.
A court would find the footballers had no case to answer, or would find them innocent because of insufficient evidence, regardless of their guilt or innocence.

You won't change your view that she was an unwilling participant and I won't change my view that maybe she was and maybe she wasn't, and that's it's not fair-minded to give the girl all the benefit of the doubt, while disbelieving the version of the footballers.

I think we should agree to disagree on this one, and let it rest at that.

Incidentally, although I disagree with you on this one, I've always had a high regard for the quality of your posts and the level of common sense that's usually evident in your views.


----------



## Timmy (4 June 2009)

A great game of Rugby League last night, champagne football!  Except the wrong team won ... :angry:

Meanwhile the AFL, not to be outdone ... has its own controversy.






Only hope he was on his way to a gangbang or something.

Carry on.


----------



## Duckman#72 (4 June 2009)

Timmy said:


> A great game of Rugby League last night, champagne football!  Except the wrong team won ... :angry:
> 
> Meanwhile the AFL, not to be outdone ... has its own controversy.
> 
> ...




LOLs ......  I like your style Timmy!!!

Not even Duckman would have had the audacity to compare the sinking of the Titanic with the capsizing of a Laser class yacht!!! 

Duckman


----------



## bunyip (4 June 2009)

Ben Cousins is such a twit I'm surprised the NRL haven't recruited him to play League!

An up and coming player is Joel Hagan, the 13 year old aboriginal sensation who is currently playing Rugby Union with Queensland's Nudgee College.
He recently scored two tries in his first ever game of Union. In the past he's played both League and Aussie Rules, and was exceptional at both.
He's also a sprint star and is the current Queensland age champion for 100 and 200 metres.
No doubt Nudgee enticed him with a sporting scholarship. I'm pleased he's at Nudgee - it's an outstanding school that not only excels in academic and sporting pursuits, but teaches it's students how to be men as well. Hopefully young Joel will be steered down the right path during his years at Nudgee so that he can make sensible life choices.

The Brisbane Broncos and the Gold Coast Titans have him in their sights and have already given him and his Dad a guided tour of their facilities. I'd say there'll be some fierce competition from the Australian Rugby Union who will also be keen to secure his talent. Or maybe AFL will end up nailing him.

Seems like a pretty decent young feller and I hope he gets in with the right crowd and makes a success of his sporting career and his life.
It'll be interesting to watch his career and see what becomes of him.


----------



## Duckman#72 (4 June 2009)

bunyip said:


> Ben Cousins is such a twit.




Great example of what happens when someone has never had the word "NO" said to them due to their sporting abilities. Pity someone wasn't there for him when he was 16. 

Julian O'Neil was the same - playing in the school First XIII while in Grade 9. All he ever knew was adulation and doors opening due to his abilities.

As a result these brats never develop as people, because they never have to. The result is usually a sad explosion when they've either a) passed their used by date and the club doesn't need them anymore, or b) they do something SO BIG that not even their ability can save them.

Duckman


----------



## bunyip (4 June 2009)

Duckman#72 said:


> Great example of what happens when someone has never had the word "NO" said to them due to their sporting abilities. Pity someone wasn't there for him when he was 16.
> 
> Julian O'Neil was the same - playing in the school First XIII while in Grade 9. All he ever knew was adulation and doors opening due to his abilities.
> 
> ...




Yeh, Julian O'Neil really was a lost cause...so much sporting ability, so much earning power, so little brains and self discipline.
Samantha Riley the swimming star was engaged to him at one stage. She can be thankful she had the sense to dump him - he wasn't exactly model husband material. Wonder what he's doing now.


----------



## Lach333 (6 June 2010)

*Re: Rugby goal kicking*

Does anyone have any tips to get more distance of goal kicks


----------



## Calliope (6 November 2010)

Once more Rugby League has demonstrated the level to which some of their players will stoop during their drunken revelries.

Joel Monaghan and some of his mates in the Canberra Raiders have shown that no act of depravity is beyond them when drunk. Rebecca Wilson has summed it up; 



> *
> EVERYTHING that is wrong with Mad Mondays, rugby league and social networking was laid bare in horrendous fashion this week.
> 
> In what can only be described as one of the most disgusting incidents I can recall in my time covering sport, Canberra Raiders star Joel Monaghan was captured on camera engaging in a sex act with a dog.
> ...




http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport/nrl/with-mates-like-these/story-e6frepbf-1225948534573


----------

