News Police probe tiger over topless photo

[shaky]

LMAO.

This society never wants to take responsibility for their own actions. The girl made a stupid mistake by trusting someone. She would be first to admit that. Yet if someone else says exactly the same thing they are victim blaming.

The politically correct police here are just way over the top.

Broad made an even bigger mistake and is paying for it. He broke the law with his mistake. Her mistake made her vulnerable. That is fact. If you can't state this without being accused of victim blaming, the world has gone completely mad.

I'm not getting involved in the argument here on morals and victim blaming.
Unfortunately you get people, whether it be on a forum or at the pub who want to "discuss" things, but in the end they believe they have the correct opinion or moral high ground an won't actually listen or take on board other peoples opinions, but will just continually restate their position as being the correct one.
When done on an internet forum the term tends to be troll I think.

 

[shaky]

For a guy who just typed in response to someone else 'you are speculating', you have spent the bulk of your posts on here speculating.
Do you see the irony????????
I would suggest a good many people saw the photo - face and all - and no it's not photoshopped as people who know the girl in question have already confirmed it was her head, shoulders, breast and everything else that was hers. The only think that wasn't hers was the premiership medallion.

Although you are reluctant to concede Broad and Broad alone is in the wrong here, the matter should have ended the moment said girl said "please do not are this photo and delete it". It's plain and simple ... do not share means do not share. Don't share it with one person, don't share it with two, or don't share it with three, four, 10, 100, 2000. Argue all you want and try and lessen Broad's actions, but do not share means exactly that. Speaking of irony, I find it ironic you are arguing a case that said person who offended here wouldn't even argue or back you up on. He f***** up and has conceded as much, whether you want to downplay his actions or not.

Firstly let me say Broad should never have shared it under any circumstances, just so people don't try to shoot me down, although I'm sure they will.
My question is, do we know that Broad shared the photo after he was asked to delete it?
I know he confessed to doing the wrong thing, I'm just not sure if he said or it has been stated as fact directly by anyone close that he shared it after being asked to delete it.
As I said doesn't make much difference anyway as it should never have been shared, but I suppose the point I'm making is that people are still running with things as facts that I'm not sure if they are the facts or not.
I now agree with the others that have said it, time to close this thread, we aren't going to learn anything new and it is just going to give people a platform to take shots at other posters.

 

[Madison]

I'm not getting involved in the argument here on morals and victim blaming.
Unfortunately you get people, whether it be on a forum or at the pub who want to "discuss" things, but in the end they believe they have the correct opinion or moral high ground an won't actually listen or take on board other peoples opinions, but will just continually restate their position as being the correct one.
When done on an internet forum the term tends to be troll I think.

Is that taking a shot at me? Imagine, having a discussion at the pub or on a forum. The horror.

I was calling someone out who actually said they think both Broad and the girl share the blame, then the poster shifted their point of view to saying they were talking about how they thought she should have exercised more caution and would be giving that advice to his daughter, the conversation then shifted to a more general victim blaming vs being able to give advice not to put yourself in vulnerable positions.

I haven't called names and think I've kept the discussion civil the whole time. If you're not talking to me then I apologise, but you quoted me earlier and you quoted AT's reply to me as well. And seemingly called me a troll in the process, while in your next post calling for the thread to be closed as posters would start taking shots at other posters.

 

[SunshineBoy]

Firstly let me say Broad should never have shared it under any circumstances, just so people don't try to shoot me down, although I'm sure they will.
My question is, do we know that Broad shared the photo after he was asked to delete it?
I know he confessed to doing the wrong thing, I'm just not sure if he said or it has been stated as fact directly by anyone close that he shared it after being asked to delete it.
As I said doesn't make much difference anyway as it should never have been shared, but I suppose the point I'm making is that people are still running with things as facts that I'm not sure if they are the facts or not.
I now agree with the others that have said it, time to close this thread, we aren't going to learn anything new and it is just going to give people a platform to take shots at other posters.

do we have all the "facts" yet, by the sounds of your post it is a "fact" that we don't know all the "facts" so therefore we shouldn't quote "facts" unless we are sure we know all the "facts"

 

[shaky]

do we have all the "facts" yet, by the sounds of your post it is a "fact" that we don't know all the "facts" so therefore we shouldn't quote "facts" unless we are sure we know all the "facts"

but are you stating this as a fact, or just supposition?

 

[prodigy]

...why are people still talking about this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Goldust]

Firstly let me say Broad should never have shared it under any circumstances, just so people don't try to shoot me down, although I'm sure they will.
My question is, do we know that Broad shared the photo after he was asked to delete it?
I know he confessed to doing the wrong thing, I'm just not sure if he said or it has been stated as fact directly by anyone close that he shared it after being asked to delete it.
As I said doesn't make much difference anyway as it should never have been shared, but I suppose the point I'm making is that people are still running with things as facts that I'm not sure if they are the facts or not.
I now agree with the others that have said it, time to close this thread, we aren't going to learn anything new and it is just going to give people a platform to take shots at other posters.

While I agree with Ancient Tiger on one point, we won't know the full details of what happened that night, BUT, we do know a lot of what happened that night as two people have given their version of events - Nathan Broad and the girl - and their versions of events don't deviate far at all from each other, if at all.
So unless you run with a conspiracy theory that Broad, the girl, RFC, Peggy O'Neal (who was sitting beside Broad at the press conference, police and lawyers, are involved in some lborate, JFK-type conspiracy, we know quite a bit. If aforementioned poster wants to continue to speculate (which, he can't even accept notr see he is doing exactly that, he's free to d so, but NO ONE else is buying it.

 

[Goldust]

...why are people still talking about this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because it's a conspiracy!!!

 

[Goldust]

You have no idea what an indisputable fact is so there is no point discussing this any further.

Indisputable fact: a photo of a topless girl was taken wearing a premiership medal. Likely to be have been taken by Broad. May have been taken by someone else in the room with Broad's phone.

Indisputable fact. Photo was sent to other people. Likely to have been sent by Broad. Also could have been sent by third party. Also could have been sent by the girl to her friends who also could have spread it.

Indisputable fact. Broad confesses to crime. Likely to be correct but the content is not indisputable. Other possibilities include protecting a third party or even the girl.

Again I have never stated my version is correct or even likely. It is just a possibility. That's all.

And if you actually read my post earlier I actually wrote that the punishment for the crime was harsh enough. I didn't say he didn't do it.

If nathan broad didn't take the photo and share it, well he';s plain stupid for covering someone, given he would likely have more to lose than a regular friend ..... but he did it ... indisputable fact as he's owned up to it. There are no third parties.

 

[HumanMeatball]

...why are people still talking about this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Change your avatar

 

[shaky]

While I agree with Ancient Tiger on one point, we won't know the full details of what happened that night, BUT, we do know a lot of what happened that night as two people have given their version of events - Nathan Broad and the girl - and their versions of events don't deviate far at all from each other, if at all.
So unless you run with a conspiracy theory that Broad, the girl, RFC, Peggy O'Neal (who was sitting beside Broad at the press conference, police and lawyers, are involved in some lborate, JFK-type conspiracy, we know quite a bit. If aforementioned poster wants to continue to speculate (which, he can't even accept notr see he is doing exactly that, he's free to d so, but NO ONE else is buying it.

I don't particularly buy into any conspiracy theory of deals behind closed doors. From what I hear/understand is the girl went to RFC first and was referred to the police by the club. I think this shows we were never interested in sweeping it under the carpet or doing any "deals". Also there were too many lawyers involved in the end for"deals" to be done.
What I do think happened in the end is all parties viewed this in common sense and chose to let it blow over to some degree. As the girls identity has remained unknow to the larger population, I never felt it would be in her best interest for it to become a public criminal case and I would be surprised if she wanted Broad to end up as a registered sex offender due to a stupid decision.
The club and AFL had to bee seen to take a stance against female "abuse" which I understand, but they were always on a hiding to nothing here as some sections of the media/public would only be happy with Broady being hung, drawn and quartered, while others feel even 3 weeks is too big a penalty.

 

[Sir_Loin]

I don't particularly buy into any conspiracy theory of deals behind closed doors. From what I hear/understand is the girl went to RFC first and was referred to the police by the club. I think this shows we were never interested in sweeping it under the carpet or doing any "deals". Also there were too many lawyers involved in the end for"deals" to be done.
What I do think happened in the end is all parties viewed this in common sense and chose to let it blow over to some degree. As the girls identity has remained unknow to the larger population, I never felt it would be in her best interest for it to become a public criminal case and I would be surprised if she wanted Broad to end up as a registered sex offender due to a stupid decision.
The club and AFL had to bee seen to take a stance against female "abuse" which I understand, but they were always on a hiding to nothing here as some sections of the media/public would only be happy with Broady being hung, drawn and quartered, while others feel even 3 weeks is too big a penalty.

Why would he be “a registered sex offender”? What do you mean by that?

 

[shaky]

Change your avatar

Sickening isn't it!
prodigy needs to learn to keep his big trap shut, why should we all suffer because of he can't stop drinking his own bath water???

 

[shaky]

Why would he be “a registered sex offender”? What do you mean by that?

If and a big if, but if it had gone to court and Broady was convicted, he could have ended up as a registered sex offender (as I understand as I'm not expert in the law).

 

[Goldust]

I don't particularly buy into any conspiracy theory of deals behind closed doors. From what I hear/understand is the girl went to RFC first and was referred to the police by the club. I think this shows we were never interested in sweeping it under the carpet or doing any "deals". Also there were too many lawyers involved in the end for"deals" to be done.
What I do think happened in the end is all parties viewed this in common sense and chose to let it blow over to some degree. As the girls identity has remained unknow to the larger population, I never felt it would be in her best interest for it to become a public criminal case and I would be surprised if she wanted Broad to end up as a registered sex offender due to a stupid decision.
The club and AFL had to bee seen to take a stance against female "abuse" which I understand, but they were always on a hiding to nothing here as some sections of the media/public would only be happy with Broady being hung, drawn and quartered, while others feel even 3 weeks is too big a penalty.

Which is exactly what went down ... you don't need to convince me.
I'm not the one 'speculating' ... sorry posting 'realistic alternatives' ... about how Broad's phone was hijacked; or how he was covering for a mate who took the photo; or covering for a mate who shared the photo without his consent.
Did Broad strike you as the type of guy who was innocent once thrust in frnt of the cameras.
This guy throwing up 'realistic alternatives' to what happened is embarrassing himself!

 

[tigerdan]

In my job they are always banging on about risk mitigation and lessons learned. There are all sorts of red zones that are restricted because they are high risk. If someone gets hurt in the red zone we don't blame them (root cause of the injury will probably be a loose nut or metal fatigue or something), but if you enter the red zone you acknowledge the risk and act accordingly. And if you shouldn't have been there in the first place, it's probably a contributing factor.

That's not victim blaming, it's just stating a fact. You can't just use the phrase victim blaming like it's a trump card that makes you win the argument (real life is not a first-year uni debating club). It's not like he had a secret camera installed in the shower and she was unwittingly photographed and then uploaded to gfrevenge dot com.

If I had a lot of dick pics circulating i'd be taking countermeasures such as making sure my head was not visible (ha) or getting one of her for mutually assured destruction. I would have thought everyone would know this (I still believe in that rare thing called common sense). As for Broad, he should have known the consequences as well. Especially being an AFL footballer where you'd think you get educated about such things.

Anyway, my last post. This thread is lame.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Which is exactly what went down ... you don't need to convince me.
I'm not the one 'speculating' ... sorry posting 'realistic alternatives' ... about how Broad's phone was hijacked; or how he was covering for a mate who took the photo; or covering for a mate who shared the photo without his consent.
Did Broad strike you as the type of guy who was innocent once thrust in frnt of the cameras.
This guy throwing up 'realistic alternatives' to what happened is embarrassing himself!

Explain to me this. The girl claims she never asked for the police to pursue the person. She went to them to help her somehow get the image off the net. Why did they then start an investigation into who did it? They then stop their investigation allegedly because the girl supposedly asked them to stop the it. If they started it despite her not wanting one, why did they stop it because she did not want it continued? It doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[theflea]

Because I was trying to deliberately keep the explanation over-simplified.

But alright mate, have at it.



As above, I was trying to keep things simple. Of course you can take something and use it as advice on what not to do for someone else. If I had a daughter I would 100% use this as an example of why you need to be so careful.

But that's to her, not in public while discussing who was in the right and wrong. We are on a public forum with numerous people speculating about what percentage of blame they share and earlier in the thread before Broad fronted up, I would say the majority of posters were making comments more like "If she didn't want people to see then why'd she take the photo"

And in this thread you've got the full range of people blaming; her, him, both and anyone else they can think of.

IMO - when you say "hopefully this is a lesson about trust" that's using this a warning, when you say "she shouldn't have let him take a pic" that's victim blaming.

You need to understand that posters are offering advice to the girl as if was to their daughter, as most likely they are thinking of their own families. 'My' only point was we can separate the arguments about his blame and punishment, to advice to the girl and other girls can be a different debate. Imo I don't see this is victim blaming as such, but that's just me.

 

[theflea]

Why would he be “a registered sex offender”? What do you mean by that?

Somebody suggested he would be registered as such if he was found guilty and a conviction was recorded. I find this abhorrent.

 

[theflea]

In my job they are always banging on about risk mitigation and lessons learned. There are all sorts of red zones that are restricted because they are high risk. If someone gets hurt in the red zone we don't blame them (root cause of the injury will probably be a loose nut or metal fatigue or something), but if you enter the red zone you acknowledge the risk and act accordingly. And if you shouldn't have been there in the first place, it's probably a contributing factor.

That's not victim blaming, it's just stating a fact. You can't just use the phrase victim blaming like it's a trump card that makes you win the argument (real life is not a first-year uni debating club). It's not like he had a secret camera installed in the shower and she was unwittingly photographed and then uploaded to gfrevenge dot com.

If I had a lot of dick pics circulating i'd be taking countermeasures such as making sure my head was not visible (ha) or getting one of her for mutually assured destruction. I would have thought everyone would know this (I still believe in that rare thing called common sense). As for Broad, he should have known the consequences as well. Especially being an AFL footballer where you'd think you get educated about such things.

Anyway, my last post. This thread is lame.

This is where I come form. How can we learn anything if we don't review events as they occur?

 

[Sir_Loin]

Somebody suggested he would be registered as such if he was found guilty and a conviction was recorded. I find this abhorrent.

Ok I don’t thinks it’s true

 

[prodigy]

Change your avatar

I’m not the one in charge of the decision unfortunately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[prodigy]

Sickening isn't it!
prodigy needs to learn to keep his big trap shut, why should we all suffer because of he can't stop drinking his own bath water???

I don’t take baths.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Madison]

Yes. I'm partly blaming her. Never denied she is the victim, and I am also blaming Broad for sharing it.

You need to understand that posters are offering advice to the girl as if was to their daughter, as most likely they are thinking of their own families. 'My' only point was we can separate the arguments about his blame and punishment, to advice to the girl and other girls can be a different debate. Imo I don't see this is victim blaming as such, but that's just me.

The first post is roughly where I jumped in. I came in a bit before that but this was the sentiment and this particular quote sums up the whole thing.

The poster literally says he is partly blaming her. LITERALLY. BLAMING. HER.

The conversation shifted because this poster then changed what they were saying from the above, to then trying to say they were more referring to how they would have advised somebody to act in future. Which is why we are were we are now.

I didn't start accusing people of victim blaming that were saying they would advise their daughters or friends not to share stuff because of the risk.

And I 100% agree. Offering advice isn't victim blaming and using this situation as a warning for people in your own life isn't victim blaming.

But in a public forum, "posters giving this advice to the girl" (who is never going to log onto bigfooty to read it) or to a daughter that is never going to come on here and read it, reads like victim blaming. It sounds and looks very similar. And it can be a fine line, I wasn't accusing everyone of victim blaming but have ended up in a discussion about it anyway.

 

[HumanMeatball]

I’m not the one in charge of the decision unfortunately.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes you are. He doesn’t care