Scandal Dani Laidley Arrested - Leave the Tasteless Jokes at the Door When Entering

Remove this Banner Ad

eliot with 1 L and 1 T. What kind of psychopath are we dealing with?
He just deleted his tweet and locked his account. Peanut realised he's put himself in deep shit.

Watch Hutchy the swamp toad come out and defend him tomorrow.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

It’s just a text forwarded on from the screenshot, exactly the same as hundreds of thousands of others (Incl most in this thread) will do.

He’ll be rapt with the flog who screen shotted his name, but it’s whoever took the photo who’ll be in trouble.
Imagine being so stupid you don’t think it’s important to censor your mates name (who is a public figure in football) before posting it on the internet.
 
Yep, normal people should have their privacy protected. When you're talking about violent criminals though, I couldn't care less if they lose their privacy. You lose some of your rights when you allegedly take ice and go stalk and attack your ex l


crocmedia with the leak, eh?


I managed to see it but looks like they just made the tweet private.
 
If you see someone shoot someone do you need to wait for a court to find them guilty before you call them a murderer?
You don't have a free pass to cast aside your rule book and act against that person in an unreasonable manner.

Police should be held to a higher standard than a reasonable expectation of behavior for an average citizen too.
 
Right.. So you see your neighbor shoot dead his wife, but you won't call him a murderer until his trial one year later... Alright mate.
He might not be guilty of murder.

Could be manslaughter. Could be not guilty due to insanity.

You have no idea what you’re talking about.
 
He’s just locked his account

View attachment 869517
yZUrbtGMeuJOzFBcCLaxWALhzTZ1HdeOLbRaw-YqrrA.jpg
 
You don't have a free pass to cast aside your rule book and act against that person in an unreasonable manner.

Police should be held to a higher standard than a reasonable expectation of behavior for an average citizen too.

I've said from the start the officer should be sanctioned, no one is arguing that. Losing your career over it though is ridiculous.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

It’s just a text forwarded on from the screenshot, exactly the same as hundreds of thousands of others (Incl most in this thread) will do.

He’ll be rapt with the flog who screen shotted his name, but it’s whoever took the photo who’ll be in trouble.
agree, obviously was someone within crocmedia that shared it too, with the name of the chat implying they all worked for croc media
 
There's always one.
If you want a nuanced discussion about sexual identity, you're in the wrong place.
The rest of us are gonna have a loooooooooot of fun with this one.
Not sure what your idea of "fun" is... there's an alleged criminal offence, and the person in jail has a family and kids.
 
If the whole story is true he's more than a cross dresser and sees himself as a women.

So.. No, that's not a lifestyle choice, unless you choosing your sexual identity was a lifestyle choice.

Very well put. There are plenty of cases of kids who have never been told about gender identities and such who insist they are the opposite gender of their biology, which does very much indicate that a person can be born a boy in a girls body or vice versa.
 
He might not be guilty of murder.

Could be manslaughter. Could be not guilty due to insanity.

You have no idea what you’re talking about.

You're talking about legal technicalities and I'm talking about the real world. If any reasonable person sees someone kill someone else they would call that person a murderer, only in lala land do you think a normal person would say "oh maybe he's technically a manslaughterer". That's for the legal system to decide.

You're so caught up in showing your very basic legal understanding that you've lost grip of what is reality and how normal people act.
 
I've said from the start the officer should be sanctioned, no one is arguing that. Losing your career over it though is ridiculous.

Police are held to a higher standard. This is a circumstance where the actions taken by the officer are at best a lapse of judgment in who was trusted to receive the photograph and at worst a serious question mark on the character of the officer seeking to shame someone.

If internal affairs believes the officer has impacted the social trust in the police integrity at a time when the government is seeking significant public involvement in the use of a tracking app then it might not be a police decision at all - it might be politically advantageous to sacrifice this officer on the alter of public opinion to reinforce the standards the government claims to hold.
 
You're talking about legal technicalities and I'm talking about the real world. If any reasonable person sees someone kill someone else they would call that person a murderer, only in lala land do you think a normal person would say "oh maybe he's technically a manslaughterer". That's for the legal system to decide.

You're so caught up in showing your very basic legal understanding that you've lost grip of what is reality and how normal people act.
The real world is you convicting someone off mere allegations and internet rumours and already deciding that their rights are gone.

Hope you don’t ever get on a jury.
 
So at this stage he has a single stalking charge and few other minor ones undisclosed.

No official mention of drugs just yet and it’s no crime to enjoy dressing up like a women.

Lets not drag his name through the mud until he’s proven guilty for anything. Talk of taking away his rights on the back of an unverified photo and a short news report, crazy...
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Scandal Dani Laidley Arrested - Leave the Tasteless Jokes at the Door When Entering

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top