Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Rugby League Louts

Jump to new
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.

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
Click to expand...

Hi Spooly

LOL:D 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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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

Charlie Happell writes:



At its annual golf day several years ago, a leading NRL club invited players, sponsors, coterie members, officials and sundry media types along to farewell the recently completed season.

But this was a golf day with a peculiarly rugby league twist: topless models handed out cans of beer to the golfers; on one hole, women dressed only in bikinis bent over and put teepegs in the turf, while standing astride players who had been instructed to lie on their backs on the ground.

It’s unlikely the golfers were expecting that sort of hospitality, or view, when they turned up to the event. It did, after all, involve one of Australia’s leading sporting clubs, and was being held at a top-notch resort course. And, of course, this was the 21st century.

Even by rugby league standards, the “entertainment” was considered by many to be overdoing the concept of looking after your sponsors. The club’s marketing people, the brains behind the idea of topless models and bikini-clad caddies, were told in no uncertain terms that they should ditch the soft pr0n and come up with something more appropriate for the following year.

The story is told in light of the Matthew Johns-group sex saga, when he and several other Cronulla players had sex with a 19-year-old woman at a Christchurch hotel in 2002, which has once again trained the spotlight on rugby league, and its very idiosyncratic, working man’s culture.

While the rest of the sporting world has moved, at differing speeds, with the times, league is starring in its very own episode of Life On Mars, stuck in a time-warp from 35 years ago.

Perhaps that is not surprising. League could well be the toughest sport of all to play. It is brutal, almost gladiatorial, and requires of its combatants enormous courage. It follows then, that the players who make it to the elite level are very tough, macho, unreconstructed blokes. That’s not to say they’re all blockheads, because they’re not, but neither do many of them get manicures, have their poodles shampooed or their kaftans dry-cleaned. Nor do they have a hissy-fit when they can’t find their blowdryer.

Roy Masters, the former NRL coach and now Fairfax sportswriter, says league players exist in that “golden triangle” where they have celebrity status, a lot of money and too much time on their hands. In his 2006 book, Bad Boys, Masters writes frankly about how group sex was a way to create closer bonds between teammates.

As well as bringing into focus that culture, the Johns affair also raises questions about the sometimes murky relationship between sportswriters and their sport.

According to The Australian yesterday, Channel Nine News sports reporter Danny Weidler has admitted he has known about the Johns story for years “but didn’t consider reporting it”.

The logical assumption is that the TV newshound did not want to rock the boat at Nine by outing one of his network colleagues and, presumably, mates. Weidler does pieces for Nine’s Footy Show, of which Johns (aka Reg Reagan) is the star. Either that, or Weidler’s news judgment needs a major recalibration.

This is how the symbiotic relationship sometimes works between sports reporter and athlete. It’s not just “you scratch my back and I’ll scratch yours”, but “I’ll protect your back if you give me some good stories in return”.

Those journalists who upset this delicate ecosystem by being hyper-critical of players can expect to be cold-shouldered, or worse.

In 1990, the American sports reporter Lisa Olsen, while covering the football beat for the Boston Herald, was sexually harassed by New England Patriots football players in the team’s locker room. Olson sued the National Football League and the players involved were punished, but she became such a pariah in Boston  ”” her tyres were slashed, she received hate mail and death threats and was the victim of burglaries  ”” that she wasn’t just frozen out, she was driven out  ”” of town.

Olson was eventually transferred to Sydney by the Boston Herald’s then owner, News Corporation, where she worked for The Daily Telegraph and then the Sydney Morning Herald.

So who else knew about the Christchurch gang-bang? Just Weidler? The incident gives rise to suspicions out there in readerland that journalism is not the fearless trade its practitioners would love to have us believe. That it is sometimes a closed shop, where contacts are protected, deals are done and truth in reporting is just an abstract concept spoken about in journalism school lecture theatres.

Charles Happell is a former sports editor at The Age
Click to expand...
 
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!!!!

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!!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!
 
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!
 
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!

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!
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
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.

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.

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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Yes, the discussion is as pointless as it is interesting and intriguing.....maybe that's why we discuss it!
 
bunyip said:
However, her boss and her work colleagues certainly didn't get the impression that she was in any way confused. .
Click to expand...
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! ;)
 
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.

Fashion mags and goss-groups, body-waxing and eyebrow-plucking, pink shirts, perfume, rising suicides, falling sperm counts. It's not castration, quite, but are men becoming more like women? If so, why? Is it what women want, or what men want? Maybe it is neither, just old-fashioned decadence, a civilisation's sad endgame. Or a simple passing fad?

Late-shopping night. High above the main drag, a floodlit image dominates. It's a young man, maybe 10 metres high, naked to the waist. He is tanned and hairless, muscled but slender, almost willowy. One hand is raised, offering a hint of vulnerable armpit. The other hovers suggestively at his crotch, in persuasive if unconscious parody of Botticelli's Venus. In each golden lobe, a diamond glitters.

But the face is most telling. Gone is the square-jawed Marlboro man, the cool-eyed control of a Clint or a Kirk or a Robert. Gone is the entire, consciously unselfconscious uber-male ethos. In its place is a distinctly bedroom smoulder of the eyes; an insinuating, passive-aggressive come-get-me-who-dares kind of welcome. The boy - who would certainly flutter his eyelashes for you if he could - is, in all but anatomy, a girl. And proud of it.
Click to expand...
 
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.

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! ;)
Click to expand...

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!
 
Top