Why do people keep asking that?Why are we still talking about this....
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Why do people keep asking that?Why are we still talking about this....
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.
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?
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.
I think you guys should definitely take this thread through till Feb.
Unless you watched the 1967 GF live of course you can say you are as old as me or older.And therein lies your problem. They are like the rest of us and are a mix of d***heads, ripping blokes, arrogant knobs and some genuine fantastic souls.
may I ask how old you are???
My unabiding and unflinching love for Richmond footballers ceased when I was about 20 when I attended a few functions and some of them were pure tossers. Mind you I mixed socially and played summer sport with a bunch of North Melbourne footballers - and equal mix of tossers and some of the best blokes you'd ever meet.
I even cringed one night when a former Richmond footballer (we're talking over 150 games) actually said to a bloke who was trying to get him to leave his Mrs alone, those immortal words of 'Don't you know who I am?"
I know you'd defend that bloke which is your perogative, which is why you fail to accept that Broad actually f***** up, even thought he's made full admissions.
I feel undermined when I am accused of being a victim blamer when that is not the intent of my posting.
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?
I think you guys should definitely take this thread through till Feb.
I’m literally not seeing a single person calling for a harsher penalty to be applied. Some are just speculating he could have had a harsher penalty applied if it went to court.
An important point is whether people think Broad is a campaigner of a bloke or a bloke who did a campaigner of a thing.
I think the latter.
An important point is whether people think Broad is a campaigner of a bloke or a bloke who did a campaigner of a thing.
I think the latter.
Evidence suggests he can only handle the bare minimumI think the latter too ...... won't be the last footballer to make a similar mistake, albeit AFL footballers get more training in the do's and don't's of social media more than the rest of us.
To be honest, the club should have made him answer media questions instead of let him off the hook by reading a prepared statement and bolting. But I'm sure they didn't want him saying anything but the bare minimum.
I think the latter too ...... won't be the last footballer to make a similar mistake, albeit AFL footballers get more training in the do's and don't's of social media more than the rest of us.
To be honest, the club should have made him answer media questions instead of let him off the hook by reading a prepared statement and bolting. But I'm sure they didn't want him saying anything but the bare minimum.
I shake my head in wonder if people can't agree 100% with that embolded sentenceHe ****** up. In this day and age he’s just very fortunate it didn’t go further. Its not what the club is about I’ve got no doubt he is feeling very shit about it. I do feel for him but I feel for the woman more.
An important point is whether people think Broad is a campaigner of a bloke or a bloke who did a campaigner of a thing.
I think the latter.
I think all the harsher critics are from the print media so maybe they talking about that?A complete and utter myth on his thread. Perpetual strawman arguments.
I think all the harsher critics are from the print media so maybe they talking about that?
The AFL do keep things moving in the off season, the draw, draft, rookie draft, free agency etc to remain in the news. This thread is doing it's bit.
In unrelated news the grand final was on foxtel yesterday
Who Won?