Rugby League Louts

[Julia]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.


Duckman

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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....

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]

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.

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]

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.



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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.