Saints in trouble again

[saintsrule]

There is a breakdown here of those who hate St. Kilda and are happy to jump on the 'they must be guilty by association' bandwagon and those who who love the Saints and defend for reasons of blind faith.
The truth, as usual, probably lies somewhere in between. The title of this post is dubious to start with, the trouble is old, not new, so 'in trouble again' is superfluous.

Those who are quick to associate this with St. Kilda and 'culture' are slow and predictable thinkers. A football culture is more to the point, as history has shown. The incidents are many and spread over numerous teams. The difference being that before recent years, they were never reported.

So to those sanctimonious persons who are so quick to find guilt, I hope that you are never ever called to sit in judgement on a fellow human being.

 

[garth p]

Not too bright are you Garth

How do you work that out tosser.

Lot smarter than you , you freak.

 

[AlwaysCarlton]

I as most people don't have the faintest idea what happened on that night. However I think it tells us something; the AFL needs to be more pro-active in educating footballers about the risks associated with their new found fame. Again I have no idea what happened and will not pass any judgement but in an ideal world we wouldn't have the situation in the first place as the two boys would have been told not to bring strangers home. Yes, one night stands are a common occurrence in society in this day and age but footballers have to be aware that they are putting themselves in a dangerous position. Perhaps it isn't fair to say that footballers shouldn't sleep with strangers, but that's one of the downfalls of the job and as it stands guility or not guilty these boys have had their public image harmed. Time for a bit more education me thinks.

 

[DynamoUltra]

Because if we have beyond reasonable doubt, nothing would ever get through the courts

Its not as simple as making something up, its just the evidence requirement is a little less

Take the Hookes case for example, because of slight doubt the bloke got off, but Civilly he will get sued into bankruptcy. There is no question he is guilty, so really which system is better?

But if there is no question he is guilty, why did he get off? You just proved to yourself the contradiction between the systems I am talking about.

 

[Hanis]

Is it just me or is it inconceivably stupid for someone to be able to sue on the basis of "the balance of probability" instead of "beyond reasonable doubt". Seriously, I could sue for a heap of things that never happened, which I could claim did and then say, well, on the balance of probability, it did. If someone can't be convicted of a crime then why should someone be allowed to sue. Disgrace.

Spot on dynamo

Can someone please tell me if her friend has come forth with any information - I mean come on she was supposedly in the same bed - what say 30cm from the other couple - as far as i know she has not come foward with anything - she must have a been a witness to something????

BTW she had consensual sex with one player so why are they both in trouble????

The Hookes case is clear cut in that the idiot bouncer hit him - he was found guilty of manslaughter and not murder as he did not intentionally kill him - unlike the Milne/Montagna case which is not clear cut at all.

If these guys get found guilty then any girl who jumps into bed with a footballer could sue on the basis of probability - actually footballer or not any girl could do it to any guy period - this will set an extremely dangerous precendent.

What if some girl grabbed my doodle when I wasn't ready to begin a sexual relationship with her is that sexual assault could i sue criminally then later could i sue on the balance of a probability????

Man this is a big cans of worms just waiting to be opened

 

[eddiesmith]

But if there is no question he is guilty, why did he get off? You just proved to yourself the contradiction between the systems I am talking about.

But criminally is more severe than Civil so thats why the differences are there.

A few thousand dollars or 10 years behind bars, wonder which is worse?

The criminal system is the problem

 

[eddiesmith]

Spot on dynamo

Can someone please tell me if her friend has come forth with any information - I mean come on she was supposedly in the same bed - what say 30cm from the other couple - as far as i know she has not come foward with anything - she must have a been a witness to something????

BTW she had consensual sex with one player so why are they both in trouble????

The Hookes case is clear cut in that the idiot bouncer hit him - he was found guilty of manslaughter and not murder as he did not intentionally kill him - unlike the Milne/Montagna case which is not clear cut at all.

If these guys get found guilty then any girl who jumps into bed with a footballer could sue on the basis of probability - actually footballer or not any girl could do it to any guy period - this will set an extremely dangerous precendent.

What if some girl grabbed my doodle when I wasn't ready to begin a sexual relationship with her is that sexual assault could i sue criminally then later could i sue on the balance of a probability????

Man this is a big cans of worms just waiting to be opened

Umm, the bouncer was found not guilty of Manslaughter

 

[Hanis]

But criminally is more severe than Civil so thats why the differences are there.

A few thousand dollars or 10 years behind bars, wonder which is worse?

The criminal system is the problem

The Australian Cricket Team should sue the England Cricket Team on a civil basis for appealing that Damien Martyn should be given out LBW (happened twice) thereby pressuring the umpire to raise his finger when he clearly snicked the ball onto his pads - on the Balance of Probability if Martyn were not given out (twice) when he clearly was not then the Aussies may have won the Ashes and may not have had suffer the mental torture and character beating they did not deserve.

I say sue the cheating pommie scum!!!

 

[Hanis]

Umm, the bouncer was found not guilty of Manslaughter

My mistake - it is still clear though that the bouncer hit him - that is not in doubt whatsoever - what is in doubt though is............

 

[eddiesmith]

The Australian Cricket Team should sue the England Cricket Team on a civil basis for appealing that Damien Martyn should be given out LBW (happened twice) thereby pressuring the umpire to raise his finger when he clearly snicked the ball onto his pads - on the Balance of Probability if Martyn were not given out (twice) when he clearly was not then the Aussies may have won the Ashes and may not have had suffer the mental torture and character beating they did not deserve.

I say sue the cheating pommie scum!!!

Geez, if you could sue someone on something like that then the Aussie cricket team would be millions of dollars in debt

 

[Hanis]

Geez, if you could sue someone on something like that then the Aussie cricket team would be millions of dollars in debt

No I think you have confused cheating with humiliation Nice try though

 

[RoK]

Why not? Might help destroy the drug industry that runs riot in Australia with nothing being done about it

Mate go home.


Simple.

 

[eddiesmith]

No I think you have confused cheating with humiliation Nice try though

No, I reckon I could find 100's of instances of poor umpiring favouring Australia over the past 5 years if I went through each match

My favourite is D.Hair in the Boxing Day test against South Africa, Kallis goes to pull a ball, misses by a foot, the Aussies appeal and Hair sticks the finger up

 

[DynamoUltra]

But criminally is more severe than Civil so thats why the differences are there.

A few thousand dollars or 10 years behind bars, wonder which is worse?

The criminal system is the problem

Yet there is a law stating that if you a tried for a crime and are found not guilty, you cannot be tried again. Even if this is in the criminal court it is still a contradiction unto itself in that you can still be "tried" in a civil court. I understand the differences between the two and am now wiser, but I still believe it's unjust.

Really, we can start up a 3rd level of court called the Simple Court where you can try someone, and if found guilty, punish them with writing "I will not rape women" 100 times on a blackboard. To be found guilty it needs to be proven that you might've been in the same street as the "victim" on the night of the alleged attack.

Subsequently, maybe cases should start in the civil court before moving to the criminal court, thus saving time and money. Obviously if something is dismissed in the civil court it is going to be dismissed in a criminal court, however, by your reckoning, if you are found guilty in a civil court you can still be found guilty in a criminal court.

If you can be found not-guilty of a crime in a criminal court, why then can you be found guilt in a civil court? Don't give me the argument of the punishment in a civil court carries less weight than in a criminal court as I would argue there is more chance of getting it wrong in a civil court. I could be accused of a rape that I had no part in what-so-ever, some sheila could blame me and because she can prove we've had interactions in the past I could be sued to bankruptcy, but at the same time there could be insumountable evidence for charges in criminal court... real fair.

 

[campbell]

Saint Kilda are the media savvy ones ,their players are the ones refusing to negotiate.

I wonder how the media found out about it.????


Pathetic,disgraceful sub species of people invovled in this all around from the Saints mob.

It could be one of your daughters GT and co, would you still act and do the same things then.

 

[The Fireman]

I can not believe this you know nothing about the case yet you say she just wants the money.If she was r*ped and i don't know if she was or not i hope she takes them to the cleaner's.

Either do you yet you are happy to post biased dumb garbage like that.

this poor girl could have been r*ped and i don't care who the player are they should pay and not just with money.

There you have it, could have been, made a fool of yourself again.

It really shows what type of person you are when a saint's player dose something wrong it ok or a lie because he play's for the saints.

It just shows what sort of fool you are to accuse me of something you have just done. How do you know they have done something wrong? I just said it seems like she is going after the money you have accused the players of a wrong doing.

That is just plain sick.

you are a complete knuckle head Rok.

 

[The Fireman]

Saint Kilda are the media savvy ones ,their players are the ones refusing to negotiate.

I wonder how the media found out about it.????


Pathetic,disgraceful sub species of people invovled in this all around from the Saints mob.

It could be one of your daughters GT and co, would you still act and do the same things then.

This is all conjecture yet you are condemning the club, I'll give you some more conjecture, what if the players did absolutely nothing wrong , would the club had acted properly or improperly then ?
We don't know what happened yet you are willing to come out with lines like Pathetic, sub species etc, .

 

[Saintsfan]

No, I reckon I could find 100's of instances of poor umpiring favouring Australia over the past 5 years if I went through each match

My favourite is D.Hair in the Boxing Day test against South Africa, Kallis goes to pull a ball, misses by a foot, the Aussies appeal and Hair sticks the finger up

wow that was your 9999th post, why not make 10000 a goodbye to this horrible country, don't let the door hit your fat arse on the way out

 

[Joffaboy]

We don't know what happened yet you are willing to come out with lines like Pathetic, sub species etc, .

The whole point is that some imbiciles like this Campbell halfwit are taking great delight in this sordid squalid issue. They think by labelling everyone involved directly or indirectly with the Saints as sub species that he has gained some sort of moral superiority.

This has nothing to do with the STKFC or some creep on an internet football forum attempting to score cheap debating points and making gross generalisations about hundreds of thousands of people.

This is about a young woman and two young men. This is about a percieved wrong inflicted on the young woman vigorously denied by the young men.

The legal system is the place for this to be played out. The two men refuse to settle out of court. They would have had legal advice to the consequences of this action ie a fully publicised civil court case.

If the woman has grievences she has a right to be awarded her day in court. This is the system we live under and I wholeheartedly agree with it. It doesn't matter to me one fig that the two men play football for the club I support, it is no reflection on me, or my club, as it is not a reflection on the club or supporters of WCE, Port, Brisbane, or Carlton who have had players who have had these allegations levelled at them.

It is only the small minded such as this Campbell and the dearly departed Total Package who took delight in such a serious issue. To turn this episode into some sort of point scoring parlour game shows the lack of intelligence, tunnel vision and stunted dogma of the ignorant who has a decided lack of life experience.

 

[Arabian Goggles]

Evil lying little cow is just after cash.

How do you know she is lying? Were you there?

 

[Choota]

Civil cases are balance of probabilities.

the burden of proof is still on the claimant.

if she has sufficient evidence for a civil case then good on her.

I hate rapists, and if milne and monty are guilty and they got off because of insufficient evidence and not because of innocence then I hope she gets them.

if its just a play for cash, or bitterness, then I hope she rots.

I don't think we can make a call on either case without the outcome of the trial.

Democracy and access to courts makes Australia a great nation.

Good post.

Having seen Milne drunk recently he's like a bllody kid with ADHD. Will be interested to see how it all pans out.

 

[tess]

Can someone please tell me if her friend has come forth with any information - I mean come on she was supposedly in the same bed - what say 30cm from the other couple - as far as i know she has not come foward with anything - she must have a been a witness to something????

Was never tested in court so we don't know.
Maybe she was passed out drunk?
Maybe she was paid off?
Maybe she isn't really a friend maybe the girls only met that night?
Maybe maybe maybe.....

BTW she had consensual sex with one player so why are they both in trouble????

If these guys get found guilty then any girl who jumps into bed with a footballer could sue on the basis of probability - actually footballer or not any girl could do it to any guy period - this will set an extremely dangerous precendent.

On the other hand, considering she backed away from taking them through the "real" courts. Does that mean it's open slather for one guy to take a girl home and then let his mates train her whether she is willing or not?

What if some girl grabbed my doodle when I wasn't ready to begin a sexual relationship with her is that sexual assault could i sue criminally then later could i sue on the balance of a probability????

Good god man are you an idiot, yes the law applies to both sexes equally. But by the sound of it, if some girl grabbed ya doodle when you weren't ready you'd just end up all sticky.

Man this is a big cans of worms just waiting to be opened

Only for the ignorant....

 

[Kildonan]

Why haven't they agreed to settle out of court??? It makes no sense, they have the money to do it, why risk going to jail?

Because they are innocent !

P.S. They are not at risk of going to jail in this situation.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

What if some girl grabbed my doodle when I wasn't ready to begin a sexual relationship with her is that sexual assault could i sue criminally then later could i sue on the balance of a probability????

Man this is a big cans of worms just waiting to be opened

I have nothing to add. I just wanted to giggle immaturely about the use of the word 'doodle'.

Maybe that was the part Fred edited .....

 

[skipper kelly]

The whole point is that some imbiciles like this Campbell halfwit are taking great delight in this sordid squalid issue. They think by labelling everyone involved directly or indirectly with the Saints as sub species that he has gained some sort of moral superiority.

This has nothing to do with the STKFC or some creep on an internet football forum attempting to score cheap debating points and making gross generalisations about hundreds of thousands of people.

This is about a young woman and two young men. This is about a percieved wrong inflicted on the young woman vigorously denied by the young men.

The legal system is the place for this to be played out. The two men refuse to settle out of court. They would have had legal advice to the consequences of this action ie a fully publicised civil court case.

If the woman has grievences she has a right to be awarded her day in court. This is the system we live under and I wholeheartedly agree with it. It doesn't matter to me one fig that the two men play football for the club I support, it is no reflection on me, or my club, as it is not a reflection on the club or supporters of WCE, Port, Brisbane, or Carlton who have had players who have had these allegations levelled at them.

It is only the small minded such as this Campbell and the dearly departed Total Package who took delight in such a serious issue. To turn this episode into some sort of point scoring parlour game shows the lack of intelligence, tunnel vision and stunted dogma of the ignorant who has a decided lack of life experience.

Im sorry to do this but I agree with you. I would also like to add that those saying the woman is a slimy little cow or that she is just after money have little knowledge of victim mentality.

I also agree with what ROK said earlier

If she was r*ped, and i don't know if she was or not, i hope she takes them to the cleaner's.

This is true. If she was r*ped then I hope she does take them to the cleaners. Although her intent may not be just money. It may be retribution, justice or simply clearing her name.

If the boys are guilty of nothing then I hope their names are cleared and they also take her to the cleaners.

Let the true victim/victims be known.