News Police probe tiger over topless photo

[Sir_Loin]

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.

In your mind these are binary decisions. They’re not.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

In your mind these are binary decisions. They’re not.

These are not binary decisions. After all I am one of the very few posters who have given many alternative theories on what may have happened. Most here have looked at it as black and white. We know life is rarely like that.

Plus that isn't even close to answering the question posed.

 

[Sir_Loin]

These are not binary decisions. After all I am one of the very few posters who have given many alternative theories on what may have happened. Most here have looked at it as black and white. We know life is rarely like that.

Plus that isn't even close to answering the question posed.

Because it’s irrelevant

 

[shaky]

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.

This is where there could possibly be a "conspiracy" of some sort. Who/how did Broad share the image with. The "third" party could be the person that shared it out to the "general public". Broady might be taking the fall to keep this under wraps and that may be of his own volition knowing he did the wrong thing in the first place.
Anyway, now I'm getting into further speculation which is all we can do with the information we have which is fairly limited.

 

[shaky]

Ok I don’t thinks it’s true

Possible I think, but if it had ever gone that far I don't think he would have, but you just never know.
More info here http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/all-projects/sex-offenders-registration
but this is the relevant part below:

Sexting

The Commission’s recommendation on discretionary (instead of automatic) registration was endorsed by the Victorian Parliamentary Law Reform Committee in its report Inquiry into Sexting, tabled in May 2013. That report recommended introducing a defence to certain sex offences and a more targeted offence aimed at prohibiting the distributing of intimate images without consent. In the alternative, the report endorsed the Commission’s recommendation that sex offender registration be discretionary only, to prevent inappropriate registration, particularly of young people.

In September 2014 the Victorian Parliament passed amendments to the Crimes Act 1958 and the Summary Offences Act 1966 that change the law about sexting. The laws create two new offences of ‘distribution of an intimate image’ and ‘threat to distribute an intimate image’. The new laws also introduce certain exceptions to child pornography offences so that young people under 18 years of age are not inappropriately prosecuted or added to the sex offenders register for consensual non-exploitative sexting.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Possible I think, but if it had ever gone that far I don't think he would have, but you just never know.
More info here http://www.lawreform.vic.gov.au/all-projects/sex-offenders-registration
but this is the relevant part below:

Sexting

The Commission’s recommendation on discretionary (instead of automatic) registration was endorsed by the Victorian Parliamentary Law Reform Committee in its report Inquiry into Sexting, tabled in May 2013. That report recommended introducing a defence to certain sex offences and a more targeted offence aimed at prohibiting the distributing of intimate images without consent. In the alternative, the report endorsed the Commission’s recommendation that sex offender registration be discretionary only, to prevent inappropriate registration, particularly of young people.

In September 2014 the Victorian Parliament passed amendments to the Crimes Act 1958 and the Summary Offences Act 1966 that change the law about sexting. The laws create two new offences of ‘distribution of an intimate image’ and ‘threat to distribute an intimate image’. The new laws also introduce certain exceptions to child pornography offences so that young people under 18 years of age are not inappropriately prosecuted or added to the sex offenders register for consensual non-exploitative sexting.

I don’t think what Broad did meets the criteria of a registrable offence, if he was charged and convicted.

 

[shaky]

I don’t think what Broad did meets the criteria of a registrable offence, if he was charged and convicted.

You would hope not or it is the world gone mad.

I understand why they have brought these laws in, I don't think this type of case is what they were really targeting, but just goes to show how careful you have to be with these types of images once taken.

Technology moves so fast now we are getting caught short as a society and legally how to deal with these things.
What older people who grew up before this technology see as harmless fun when they were growing up (which is debatable anyway), can now have much larger unintended consequences. I would say there will be a lot of this (most of it a lot less public), as the general society catch up with consequences of these types of actions.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Because it’s irrelevant

It wasn't directed to you. Now you are being a dickhead by telling all what is relevant or not. You are not a mod. If you think a question is irrelevant, ignore it especially if it isn't directed to you.

 

[Goldust]

This is where there could possibly be a "conspiracy" of some sort. Who/how did Broad share the image with. The "third" party could be the person that shared it out to the "general public". Broady might be taking the fall to keep this under wraps and that may be of his own volition knowing he did the wrong thing in the first place.
Anyway, now I'm getting into further speculation which is all we can do with the information we have which is fairly limited.

I am just putting this out there ... not even a moron would take a rap for someone else for doing that, let alone a guy with a public profile.

 

[Goldust]

These are not binary decisions. After all I am one of the very few posters who have given many alternative theories on what may have happened. Most here have looked at it as black and white. We know life is rarely like that.

Plus that isn't even close to answering the question posed.

You've SPECULATED on what has happened .... pffft, alternative theories.
Once you toss up alternatives to what has happened, you are speculating, but you still fail to see this.

 

[Goldust]

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.

It happens very often.
Are you naive to think that EVERY police investigation proceeds to a charge, or court room.
There are many factors that effect whether an investigation leads to charges ... including an aggrieved party not wanting charges to be laid.
But police will always do due diligence.

 

[shaky]

I am just putting this out there ... not even a moron would take a rap for someone else for doing that, let alone a guy with a public profile.

Sorry, I don't think I expressed that well. I'm sure Broad is guilty of the initial taking and sharing of the photo, but perhaps not the one that let it out into the general public. It may be better for him to cop the 3 weeks than other more high profile players to be dragged into it also. however, with you access to better sources than me you probably know more of the story, so if you are saying it is all Broad then I will believe you.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

It happens very often.
Are you naive to think that EVERY police investigation proceeds to a charge, or court room.
There are many factors that effect whether an investigation leads to charges ... including an aggrieved party not wanting charges to be laid.
But police will always do due diligence.

That does not answer my question. The police investigation in this case was commenced despite the victim not wanting one. The police investigation was supposedly stopped because the victim did not want it to go ahead. That in itself does not make any sense. I understand that all investigations do not go on to charges but that is another matter. There is something that isn't quite right about the whole thing. That and the fact that police have stated that they could reopen the case. Why in the hell would they do that? Why would they waste tax payers money reopening a case they pulled out of themselves? Maybe they could actually go after real criminals FFS.

 

[This Is Anfield]

 

[muzhogg]

That does not answer my question. The police investigation in this case was commenced despite the victim not wanting one. The police investigation was supposedly stopped because the victim did not want it to go ahead. That in itself does not make any sense. I understand that all investigations do not go on to charges but that is another matter. There is something that isn't quite right about the whole thing. That and the fact that police have stated that they could reopen the case. Why in the hell would they do that? Why would they waste tax payers money reopening a case they pulled out of themselves? Maybe they could actually go after real criminals FFS.

Personally, I don't find any of that problematic.

That the police _could_ reopen the investigation is just a statement of fact -- although my guess is that they probably wouldn't unless new evidence came to light (i.e. it was alleged that there were other photos/girls/occasions involved).

It appears it was the girl's family, not the girl, who went to police -- so it's not clear to me how much she wanted police involvement from the start. And if all they wanted was the image removed from the net, then the logical starting place for the police would be with the person alleged to have taken the photo. It's not necessary that wanting the photo removed entails wanting charges laid either.

I reckon you're looking for too much logical consistency in a situation which seems to me to involve a fair bit of human emotion and a legal system which doesn't always work logically.

 

[Sir_Loin]

It wasn't directed to you. Now you are being a dickhead by telling all what is relevant or not. You are not a mod. If you think a question is irrelevant, ignore it especially if it isn't directed to you.

Your using hypotheticals that are irrelevant to the central point. I’m not sure why you continue to do this other than to attempt to make it seem the woman has some sort of ulterior motive.

Now if you can’t handle being called on it stop posting stupid shit.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Personally, I don't find any of that problematic.

That the police _could_ reopen the investigation is just a statement of fact -- although my guess is that they probably wouldn't unless new evidence came to light (i.e. it was alleged that there were other photos/girls/occasions involved).

It appears it was the girl's family, not the girl, who went to police -- so it's not clear to me how much she wanted police involvement from the start. And if all they wanted was the image removed from the net, then the logical starting place for the police would be with the person alleged to have taken the photo. It's not necessary that wanting the photo removed entails wanting charges laid either.

I reckon you're looking for too much logical consistency in a situation which seems to me to involve a fair bit of human emotion and a legal system which doesn't always work logically.

Bingo

 

[vmasco]

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.

To clarify I gave that response (the first quote) because I had made a comment previously to another poster regarding the young woman posing for the photo, to which you accused me of victim blaming. To further clarify my point of view I followed it up with an example scenario but you dismissed it. I was not blaming her for the photo being shared.

If you go back through this thread I have always maintained a consistent point of view. I have never accused the woman of being a hooker or a **** or of "setting up" Broady for some payout. In fact I had been quite sympathetic towards the young woman's predicament, and have had a discussion with my daughter on the topic - I do not need her to log into BigFooty to learn about this stuff.

I had a rant ready to post about the above but then had a bit of a think, and realised that while most of us were at some stage equipped with enough sense to know our limits and know when to pull the pin on what situations we put ourselves in, unfortunately there are people who missed out on this lesson through no fault of their own and are vulnerable and hence why the law is what it is, and perhaps why there are some taking umbrage to the "victim blaming". I don't consider saying we should take responsibility for our actions as victim blaming (to say the girl should not have posed in the first place) but I don't know her and perhaps it had not had been instilled in her to consider the potential poor outcomes of what she did.

On another note I just had the chat with my daughter, and coincidentally she has been learning about the image sharing laws in humanities lessons at school. When asked if she would ever take her clothes off and let a boyfriend or anyone else take a photo of her I was met with an emphatic NO! Not just because of the laws but more she has figured out it would be a risky thing to do and might have negative consequences later in life.
I went further and asked what if it was someone famous like say Dan Rioli who she thinks is kind of cute (on the field mind you, but not in a suit ), or a member of of the boy bands she likes to listen to. Still no, and she added she would be grateful to just enjoy the experience of meeting them.

So I am glad her mum and I have instilled her what I consider a solid set of boundaries and sensible approach to life (without putting her in cotton wool), but I have a better understanding of why some people, vulnerable people, need to be protected. There is some good coming from this thread.

Having said all that the bolded bleating above still pisses me off when its coming from people who do know better. Yes you have a right to do as you bloody well please but have the balls to deal with the consequences when it all goes pear shaped...

As a parent I'm no expert and it is difficult to know where to draw the line when teaching our kids about limits and risk taking, and balancing that with freedom to learn for themselves. I thought that as unfortunate it is for the young woman it is an opportunity to discuss with posters here these issues as there are a wide range of veiw points available.

I feel undermined when I am accused of being a victim blamer when that is not the intent of my posting.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Your using hypotheticals that are irrelevant to the central point. I’m not sure why you continue to do this other than to attempt to make it seem the woman has some sort of ulterior motive.

Now if you can’t handle being called on it stop posting stupid shit.

The question was not of a hypothetical situation. It allegedly happened as I described it. The girl is 20 also do I doubt they have any say in this. The girl has all the say here.

 

[Sir_Loin]

The question was not of a hypothetical situation. It allegedly happened as I described it. The girl is 20 also do I doubt they have any say in this. The girl has all the say here.

You’re the one that saying it doesn’t make any sense and that it’s not quite right. Come on then, out with it. What is it?

 

[popsikle99]

Why are we still talking about this....

 

[Ancient Tiger]

You’re the one that saying it doesn’t make any sense and that it’s not quite right. Come on then, out with it. What is it?

I honestly don't know. It just worries me when one part of a story is not quite right. Does that mean other parts are also not as they seem? Not saying that they are, but a question is raised about their validity.
This is a discussion board so I'm just throwing it out there.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

The other thing for me is that I look at players as part of the Richmond family. As part of the Richmond family I will protect them until I am 100% convinced they are guilty with no other explanation possible. Even 99% isn't enough. Just like I would my own family.

OK?

 

[theflea]

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.

Fair enough, but i guess i can see where they were coming from and the difference between the 2. I take it as a given that they (mostly)cant actively tell it directly to someone, so assume it to be if they could.

 

[Sir_Loin]

The other thing for me is that I look at players as part of the Richmond family. As part of the Richmond family I will protect them until I am 100% convinced they are guilty with no other explanation possible. Even 99% isn't enough. Just like I would my own family.

OK?

Not if you want to discuss this rationally and objectively. However your prerogative to argue from any place of bias you choose