Nixon & Stkilda School Girl

[Tas]

I mean any guy with half a brain...................

Well, that obviously leave Nixon out.

 

[garygee]

What players does he actually manage besides Roo and Gilbert?

 

[bigmicka]

For those saying she is not acting as an adult, here is something to think about.

She was smart enough to not use video tape, only audio. Otherwise she would have been charged with production of child pornography and all those rights of a child would have been wiped out with her addition to the sex offenders register.

Micka

 

[Matt72]

What players does he actually manage besides Roo and Gilbert?

A lot of big names http://www.flyingstart.com.au/about.html

 

[bing181]

What players does he actually manage besides Roo and Gilbert?

Cameron Bruce for one ...

 

[LifeSpan-Void]

Nixon is an idiot
Trying to paint her as a victum is beyond laughable. Premeditated revenge(fact)
Woman can get away with any lie, manipulation or pyschopath behaviour
Once again men are made fully accountable for their actions
Yet another woman taking zero responsibility for her actions
Equal rights means equal responsibility. Something they should teach woman and the media

But really what does this girl have to lose? Her dignity? Self-respect? credibility? Those were all gone long ago. Nope, the blame here and with any other new scandals that break involving this girl should lie squarely at the feet of the males that lack the self-awareness to be able to say "No" to this girl's advances and requests. With the St. Kilda players you can possibly (not excuse, but) attribute some of their behaviour to naivety around a honey pot. Nixon, on the other hand, had everything to lose by getting involved with this girl, and you can hardly accuse him of lacking life experience. He was a shark that got snared by a cast-happy fisherman (girl) using a worm on a hook.

How does that saying go (assuming the version told by George W. Bush is inadmissible) "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

 

[Matt72]

For those saying she is not acting as an adult, here is something to think about.

She was smart enough to not use video tape, only audio. Otherwise she would have been charged with production of child pornography and all those rights of a child would have been wiped out with her addition to the sex offenders register.

Micka

Why are St Kilda fans so hard of reading when it comes to this matter?

The girl, who cannot be named for legal reasons, has provided the Herald Sun with numerous video and audio tapes.

She contacted the Herald Sun on Sunday and later provided the newspaper with the tapes and audio recordings.

The Herald Sun has chosen not to publish the tapes.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Hardly a surprise that insular football culture, inhabited generally by baboons, would churn boneheaded behaviour out on a regular basis.

Take a look at a key player in this whole nonsense, Sam Gilbert - have you ever seen a set of beady little eyes closer together, unless they were on a silverback gorilla?

You left out a picture of the bloke with the sleeve tattoo.

 

[Daytripper]

No it isn't, Drippy.

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/sda1999210/s11.html

(1) Subject to subsection (2), a person must not knowingly communicate or
publish a record or report of a private conversation or private activity that
has been made as a direct or indirect result of the use of a listening device,
an optical surveillance device or a tracking device.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply-

(a) to a communication or publication made with the express or implied
consent of each party to the private conversation or private activity;
or

 

[Donners]

For those saying she is not acting as an adult, here is something to think about.

She was smart enough to not use video tape, only audio. Otherwise she would have been charged with production of child pornography and all those rights of a child would have been wiped out with her addition to the sex offenders register.

Micka

Not really; firstly it would be unlikely she'd be prosecuted for that, secondly it wouldn't be an automatic registration - and I doubt that a judge would make a discretionary registration.

 

[dmc333]

You left out a picture of the bloke with the sleeve tattoo.

You guys need to take that up with the HUN; he's seemingly escaped out the back door on this.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

She could almost become first lady to the italian PM, but she's left it a bit late.
No doubt she will live a life of comfort when she marries some 70 year old millionairre.
I mean, if she can do Nixon, there can't be many places where she'd draw the line.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

You guys need to take that up with the HUN; he's seemingly escaped out the back door on this.

Maybe the girl has no issue with him.

 

[frednirk]

Why can't we say her name?

 

[Donners]

Why can't we say her name?

Because she is a minor, and particularly because of another matter which she is involved in (which thankfully the newspapers have been circumspect in reporting lately...).

 

[Daytripper]

Not really; firstly it would be unlikely she'd be prosecuted for that, secondly it wouldn't be an automatic registration - and I doubt that a judge would make a discretionary registration.

Plus its for people under the age of 16.

 

[Flyingsaint]

amazing how RN fitted in really with the hospital visit and the BF and apparently the Soap turned into Ricky's car today... may be she noticed the number of followers deminishing

Ilooveeemymaaannnn , nawww xxx

15 Feb


»
@ I'm okay, my whole face feels like it's broken though haha! I bet I look so hot right now x
14 Feb

»

Well not yet.. But it will be, it's all red and swollen! As for my nose.. Im omw to the clinic now! Lots of ice on both!!
14 Feb

»

How to break your nose: Step on a piece of soap in the shower, fall over and smash your nose on the tap - And you're done!
14 Feb


»

Had a lovely VD, spent with my man, and a great night ahead with him ) K x
14 Feb

 

[imperial_oz]

For those saying she is not acting as an adult, here is something to think about.

She was smart enough to not use video tape, only audio. Otherwise she would have been charged with production of child pornography and all those rights of a child would have been wiped out with her addition to the sex offenders register.

Micka

Sorry but you are dead wrong here. CP refers to images of children 'under 16'. She would not have charged for possession or supply. You might wanna check the relevant statutes before posting this sort of stuff in the future.

 

[Public Enemy No1]

But really what does this girl have to lose? Her dignity? Self-respect? credibility? Those were all gone long ago. Nope, the blame here and with any other new scandals that break involving this girl should lie squarely at the feet of the males that lack the self-awareness to be able to say "No" to this girl's advances and requests. With the St. Kilda players you can possibly (not excuse, but) attribute some of their behaviour to naivety around a honey pot. Nixon, on the other hand, had everything to lose by getting involved with this girl, and you can hardly accuse him of lacking life experience. He was a shark that got snared by a cast-happy fisherman (girl) using a worm on a hook.

How does that saying go (assuming the version told by George W. Bush is inadmissible) "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me."

Straight from the feminist doctrine...Blame men for everything
Woman shall bleat about their rights continously while at no time accept any responsibility for anything.

Obviously some men have been 'brainwashed' into believing this also.

 

[Daytripper]

Because she is a minor, and particularly because of another matter which she is involved in (which thankfully the newspapers have been circumspect in reporting lately...).

Just on that other matter Donners and I'm asking you as I know you have a legal background.

Surely its long odds that he will be convicted unless there is actual physical proof.

His lawyer only has to bring up all the lies she has told in the past and her recent history, She is hardly going to be a credible witness.

 

[Simple Jack]

Re: 'Saints Girl' claims affair with Nixon

Legally she can't vote
Legally she can't drive
Legally she can't drink

She's a minor. Not consdered by thhe law old or meture enough to make the drecisions. Nixon is old enough to be her grandfather. He would have been 30 when she was born. ew.

Seeing as she seems to be so nomadic, if she listed her address as any state or territory other than Victoria, she actually would be old enough to drive.


Here are some questions/responses from her "formspring" (whatever that is)

Do you swallow

What girl doesn't?

have you ever had consensual sex for reasons other than pleasure?

Ahm yeS?

How many tattoos do you have? Which is your most loved?

My first tatt. "Success is the best revenge". x

Playboy when you're legal?

Eh, we'll see what happens.

hahah NO WAY. this is the same chick that gave me a blowie at a party wen i was 16.

Considering I've been to about 3 parties in my life?
I've been going out clubbing since I was about 14/15.. So tell me when - Inbetween running 7 days a week and clubbing I managed to fit a party in?

Awwwww the poor sweet baby! SHES ONLY A CHILD PEOPLE, SOMEONE MUST PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!


Having said that, it's time to start with negative re-enforcement. Anytime someone involved with the AFL goes within 10 feet of her, they get beaten over the head with a pool cue.


Also something interesting. if she did record the video, could she be charged with....

67A. Definitions

In this Subdivision-

child pornography means a film, photograph, publication or computer game that
describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a minor engaging in
sexual activity or depicted in an indecent sexual manner or context;
...
minor means a person under the age of 18 years;

and

68. Production of child pornography



(1) A person who prints or otherwise makes or produces child pornography is
guilty of an indictable offence punishable on conviction by level 5
imprisonment (10 years maximum).

EDIT: Just saw imperial oz's post, bolding suggests that your claim of CP being for under 16 is not correct

 

[frednirk]

Because she is a minor, and particularly because of another matter which she is involved in (which thankfully the newspapers have been circumspect in reporting lately...).

Isnt Jessica Watson a minor too?

Justin bieber?

I can say their names without consequence.

 

[Donners]

Plus its for people under the age of 16.

No, it's actually not.

child pornography means a film, photograph, publication or computer game that describes or depicts a person who is, or appears to be, a minor engaging in sexual activity or depicted in an indecent sexual manner or context;
...

minor means a person under the age of 18 years

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s67a.html

 

[cmndstab]

I know, and that's why I used the word. The law used to previously treat females who had been sexually assaulted harshly, due to the attitudes of males who blamed the victim. It is those attitudes that I am noting. They are sadly very alive. In this case, where (presumably) males read something scandalous about a footy personality, instead of judging the claim on its merits, they immediately attack the female, in very harsh terms. I would've thought that here on BF we can be a bit better than that.

I think you're looking to be outraged at something that's not really present, to be honest. Outside of a token few troll/joke posts, nobody here is toeing the male vs female line. Yes, people have judged the girl harshly here - as they should. She acted deplorably.

Nixon also acted deplorably - and it could be reasonably argued that his actions were worse than hers, given the relative age differential and his business associations with the footballers at the heart of the previous scandal, not to mention the fact that he is married. However, neither his actions, nor the actions of anybody else in the past, in any way excuse this girl for her actions.

I don't think I've seen one person in this thread stand up for Nixon. If there has been anyone, they are in a very tiny minority. People are not siding with the male here. Nor are they 'blaming the victim' - she was not a victim in this case. She orchestrated the relationship with Nixon, going as far as to premeditate a recording in order to extract petty revenge. Legally she's of legal age to consent to sex, so we can't use that argument against Nixon.

People are well within their rights to judge this girl very harshly on this incident - she's made some terrible choices. Her actions in this latest scenario have been inexcusable, driven solely by the blackest of reasons - revenge. Nixon's actions were also inexcusable, with the further fact that he should be old enough to know better. The fact that this scenario involves a man and a woman does not mean we have to pick one side to stick up for at the expense of the other in some kind of gender war. Both parties behaved disgracefully, and given that the girl has chosen to bring it to the public eye, the public has every right to condemn her for her actions.

 

[Daytripper]

No, it's actually not.




http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/vic/consol_act/ca195882/s67a.html

Yes, you're right.