Rumour 2024 Rumours and Speculation Part 3

[pricey386]

This is an unbelievably weird hill to die on..

 

[whattagun07]

Feenix calling out modern snowflake society.

Everyone here has told an offensive joke or made an offensive comment in a public space. Would you have liked to be arrested and fined for doing so?

Many of you would have been to or watched comedians performing insanely insensitive jokes. Should he/she or God forbid they be dragged off stage?

There are far more genuinely offensive things to complain about than some bloke pretending to get a blowie from a blowie. And fining someone for not stopping it? That's just insane.

That's all from me

Narrator: "It wasn't all from him"

 

[Cromulant]

Correct, an error that denied Hayne his legal right to cross examine and thus, plead his case.

I would hope every judge would uphold that right.

Imagine being the woman being cross examined, forced to relive the worst moment of your life by a guy trained to make your life miserable.

 

[Mostyn]

Bloke was found innocent, you're raging about something our legal system found didn't happen.

He conviction was overturned because an appeals court found there was a procedural error.

That's a long way from being found innocent.

 

[GreyCrow]

Three players pretending to be goalposts is MILES away from someone dressing as a rapist and possibly acting out the scene. FFS, what is wrong with you people?

Given the 148 pages discussing the goal review I can guarantee many more here were offended by that than Hayne rape case

Secondly unless you know what occurred then how do you know what Hayne did it the gws player?

Who cares if he dressed up as Hayne

 

[Cromulant]

Potentially, the joke was about an NRL player entrapped by a money grubbing woman...

You don't know any better than I do.

Oh you went there.

I hope you don't have a daughter.

 

[spenze]

The AFL has said that there was no blow-up doll.

It was one of the expensive ones that don't need blowing up?

Giggitty

 

[Mostyn]

Ok, what about if you came to said "troubled couples" theme party depicting Dodi and Di? Donald and Stormy? Dave Grohl and baby mumma? Which part offends you? The sex doll? The subject matter? The time frame?

Well, the rape isn't great.

It's probably the rape, yeah

 

[feenix67]

Right but you said a court found it didn't happen which is not what the court did at all

I'm not getting into a semantic argument with you mate. The case could not be proven and was ultimately dropped. The end result is he is innocent as a result, because here in the free world, we are deemed innocent until proven guilty.

 

[FR0GGY]

Again, he's not innocent.... he's just not guilty in the eyes of the law.

Do we throw out the innocent until proven guilty?
*I have no idea about the actual case.

 

[Danger in Texas]

Surely this talk deserves its own thread

 

[Mostyn]

Actually no.

Trial 1 jury couldn't reach a verdict
Trials 2 and 3 guilty overturned on appeal
Prosecution subsequently dropped charges.

Facts matter.

The fact is the appeal overturned his conviction on procedural grounds.

His guilt was overturned and the prosecution decided not to try the case for the fourth time.

 

[feenix67]

Well, the rape isn't great.

It's probably the rape, yeah

Happy with the twin towers then?

 

[Sizzlepack]

Just astonishing hypocrisy to, with one breath, accuse anyone who took issue with the GWS function – and, indeed, modern "woke society" (how original!) – as "lacking nuance" and then, with the next, to go on a "Jarryd Hayne was innocent" crusade. Wonder what the women who listen to the podcast would think.

 

[Mostyn]

Correct, an error that denied Hayne his legal right to cross examine and thus, plead his case.

I would hope every judge would uphold that right.

There had been multiple opportunities to cross examine.

They wanted the opportunity to cross examine based on one point, and the judge ruled it trivial and unnecessary.

I'm surprised by your commitment to die on this particular hill. Not sure whether the right to make rape jokes needs to be so vigorously supported

 

[feenix67]

Just astonishing hypocrisy to, with one breath, accuse anyone who took issue with the GWS function – and, indeed, modern "woke society" (how original!) – as "lacking nuance" and then, with the next, to go on a "Jarryd Hayne was innocent" crusade. Wonder what the women who listen to the podcast would think.

I didn't say he was innocent. I said that was the result of the court proceedings. I have no idea what happened and neither do you

 

[Mr MysteryGuest]

Potentially, the joke was about an NRL player entrapped by a money grubbing woman...

You don't know any better than I do.

Why do you feel so strongly defending him when you don’t know what he did?

Tbh I’m not sure if a ban is need but I’m curious as to why so many defend, while using bad faith arguments.

 

[feenix67]

There had been multiple opportunities to cross examine.

They wanted the opportunity to cross examine based on one point, and the judge ruled it trivial and unnecessary.

I'm surprised by your commitment to die on this particular hill. Not sure whether the right to make rape jokes needs to be so vigorously supported

I'll ignore the snide implication.

I actually give a **** about facts mate. This world is full of hyperbole.

A JUDGE ruled that he should have had the right to cross examine further. I'll take that over your opinion.

 

[Crow till I die]

The fact is the appeal overturned his conviction on procedural grounds.

His guilt was overturned and the prosecution decided not to try the case for the fourth time.

So does that mean because proper procedures were not followed, that the original guilty verdict was wrongly found...meaning that had proper procedures been followed it may have resulted in an original non guilty verdict?

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

Just glad The AFC is not the front-page AFL story so far this year.

Touch wood!!!

 

[Mostyn]

Imagine being the woman being cross examined, forced to relive the worst moment of your life by a guy trained to make your life miserable.

I don't think it was the woman.

It was an officer, and they wanted to introduce into evidence the victim's concern that her text messages could be interpreted as giving consent.

Obviously, it doesn't matter what the text messages said, because consent can be withdrawn at any time. The fact that she sounded interested in an earlier message is legally irrelevant. Presumably that's why the judge didn't allow it, and the appeal court ruled he was incorrect.

 

[Cyclonus]

Touch wood!!!

You could get suspended for that.

 

[George Kramer]

Surely this talk deserves its own thread

Yep, surely my shitfights are better derailments than this

 

[Mostyn]

Potentially, the joke was about an NRL player entrapped by a money grubbing woman...

You don't know any better than I do.

C'mon.

You don't need to win an internet argument this much.

This level of victim blaming is horrendous. You should be embarrassed you resorted to saying it.

 

[Kane McGoodwin]

You could get suspended for that.

Not at channel 9 apparently.