- Mar 24, 2012
- 1,403
- 3,880
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
Anyone know if it’s true that when a victim sells their story to the media charges can no longer be laid?
not that I know of
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.
Anyone know if it’s true that when a victim sells their story to the media charges can no longer be laid?
It’s not 1980 anymore Willy, there’s this thing called “Using a carriage service to menace, harass or cause offence”, and yes, people who feel like they’ve been harassed or sent offensive or threatening material can press charges.
Spot on.To be honest, I think the AFL involvement is helpful and prudent in this instance. It means that the club can fulfill its duty to support the player, but also separate out the investigation and the potential for penalty/sanction by inviting the regulator to play a leading role in that capacity. It would be challenging for any club to manage those issues on its own in a case like this.
I normally shudder at the AFL having influence over Hawk business, but in this instance it is probably a good thing.
From what I have read this isn't even close to a 474.17 offense, it needs to be ongoing and offensive. The bit you quoted is the heading in the telecom act, not the legislation. Thank goodness, some of the stuff I have told cold callers to do with their solar panels would land me in serious legal trouble if causing offence was illegal.
The section more to do with telephone offences/spam emails/texts where the victim is flooded and overwhelmed with abuse. A one-off dick pick doesn't meet the threshold. Patton would have to be sending multiple dick picks to the same person even then a reasonable person (given the same circumstances and scenario) would need find the material offensive. I wouldn't think a person (Elle Coonan) who sends nude pictures of herself out (for money) saying she finds dick pic offensive would meet the reasonable person test. That doesn't mean she can't be offended by it, but it isn't an offense to offend someone. It would be very odd for a pornographic model to find nude pictures offensive. I am trying to say that being offended by something does not make it an offensive act, and what one person finds offensive is not the same as what another person would, so you have to take their relative experience and lifestyle into account.
**note:I am only talking about the Model who was quoted in the Daily Mail, I have no idea whether other victims would have cause to find a Dick pic offensive.
This doesn't excuse Patton's actions at all, but I really do not think he has committed an offence. He has probably breached all sorts of workplace guidelines and without doubt, could (and should) be sacked for behaving inappropriately. I doubt very much we will see him again, he is in a dire predicament at the moment, he cannot make a defense lest he gets called out as being a victim blamer further diminishing his already crippled reputation. I'm not suggesting we feel sorry for him, he bought it on himself, but I don't want to see him hung, drawn and quartered when a simple firing squad would do the trick.
Great clarification- I thought this was the case but didn't know enough to write about it. Much appreciated!Hey, hope you dont mind but have been in telecommunications for a long time. The regulations and law was changed if said text carries an image, which apparently these do. It is treated exactly the same if it was done in person. So if i send you a picture of my junk, without your permission, it will be treated the same as if I had walked up and flashed you. harsher penalties apply if you repeat the act, after being told no.
Great clarification- I thought this was the case but didn't know enough to write about it. Much appreciated!
Well said!Well not shedding any tears if he departs but I hope as a human he gets help and can improve his treatment of others in future.
I'm hearing won't be playing again for Hawthorn.
The Afl will come to a agreement with his contract.
Stroking the salami while on video call. Seems to be a lot of unwanted repetitive approaching women for sex. Guy has a problem. Needs to go and get that sorted regardless of any legal repercussions stemming from his actions.For sending through completely inappropriate pics? What else happened?
Stroking the salami while on video call. Seems to be a lot of unwanted repetitive approaching women for sex. Guy has a problem. Needs to go and get that sorted regardless of any legal repercussions stemming from his actions.
Some ppl in this thread showing their ignorance and complete lack of empathy. How can you make statements that are being made in this thread when you do not know the full detail of what's happened.
Clearly has a problem but this playing of the mental health card every time shitty behaviour is uncovered has got to stop.
People need to be accountable for their own actions and this grub knew exactly what he was doing.
I understand your skepticism however you can not assume that he playing anything hereClearly has a problem but this playing of the mental health card every time shitty behaviour is uncovered has got to stop.
People need to be accountable for their own actions and this grub knew exactly what he was doing.
I hope he sorts himself out but more importantly, I hope he stops harassing women. I do not want to see the guy in a Hawthorn jumper again.
There are two different things here.
One are his actions, and, yes, he needs to be, and will be fully accountable for them.
The second is the public scrutiny that has developed as a result of his actions.
Anyone following this knows this is NOT a case of someone 'playing the mental health card' to avoid consequences.
This is someone who has begun to face the consequences, one of which is having the entire world, includingparents, family and friends, aware of his actions.
I understand your skepticism however you can not assume that he playing anything here