News Welcome to Hawthorn Jon Patton : Retired

[Bedi]

I'm trying to remember any Hawthorn player retiring or being potentially sacked pre-season (maybe Garlett, but think that was mid-season), so given we may have lost two of our ex-GWS players within the space of a few weeks, surely they're related?
The rumors linking Scully with Patton are clearly b/s, but are people thinking it's a weird coincidence or more to it?

 

[Brant]

I'm trying to remember any Hawthorn player retiring or being potentially sacked pre-season (maybe Garlett, but think that was mid-season), so given we may have lost two of our ex-GWS players within the space of a few weeks, surely they're related?
The rumors linking Scully with Patton are clearly b/s, but are people thinking it's a weird coincidence or more to it?

Weren't they both in Sydney at the time of the Lindt Seige as well?

Maybe you're onto something here.

Maybe not though.

 

[Brishawk]

I'm trying to remember any Hawthorn player retiring or being potentially sacked pre-season (maybe Garlett, but think that was mid-season), so given we may have lost two of our ex-GWS players within the space of a few weeks, surely they're related?
The rumors linking Scully with Patton are clearly b/s, but are people thinking it's a weird coincidence or more to it?

It is a coincidence. Nothing to do with gws.

 

[Off The Couch]

I'm trying to remember any Hawthorn player retiring or being potentially sacked pre-season (maybe Garlett, but think that was mid-season), so given we may have lost two of our ex-GWS players within the space of a few weeks, surely they're related?
The rumors linking Scully with Patton are clearly b/s, but are people thinking it's a weird coincidence or more to it?

So you don’t think that there’s any truth to the story that his wife’s dad is unwell and she wants to return to Sydney

pretty big yarn to spin to cover up an affair

 

[danielG]

Your reasoning would be exhibit a for why more victims don't come forward

The media in the AFL have a license to print provocative baseless slander and even if it’s proven to be fabricated there is no recourse.. Jon Patton it’s pretty clear has been a bit of a grubby human and probably won’t, nor deserves to play football again but when a guy is / has been in hospital and may or may not have self harmed just let it go.. That’s the point Clarkson made, the punishment of the complete and utter embarrassment and most likely having your career ended is punishment enough. Probably doesn’t need his employer (HFC) adding to it at this point.. Also Probably doesn’t need the Herald Sun writing a lead story that he needs to be exited from the game.. Someone wrote earlier, it will cost a life one day.. He’s done a pretty foul thing but I don’t want to hear he’s done something drastic because the backlash got too much for him.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

The media in the AFL have a license to print provocative baseless slander and even if it’s proven to be fabricated there is no recourse.. Jon Patton it’s pretty clear has been a bit of a grubby human and probably won’t, nor deserves to play football again but when a guy is / has been in hospital and may or may not have self harmed just let it go.. That’s the point Clarkson made, the punishment of the complete and utter embarrassment and most likely having your career ended is punishment enough. Probably doesn’t need his employer (HFC) adding to it at this point.. Also Probably doesn’t need the Herald Sun writing a lead story that he needs to be exited from the game.. Someone wrote earlier, it will cost a life one day.. He’s done a pretty foul thing but I don’t want to hear he’s done something drastic because the backlash got too much for him.

I think you need to re-read the post you quoted and what it was in context to.

 

[TylerDurden]

I'm trying to remember any Hawthorn player retiring or being potentially sacked pre-season (maybe Garlett, but think that was mid-season), so given we may have lost two of our ex-GWS players within the space of a few weeks, surely they're related?
The rumors linking Scully with Patton are clearly b/s, but are people thinking it's a weird coincidence or more to it?

Thorp.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Thorp.

Was delisted at the normal time.

Dees punted him preseason after he got into a bit of trouble at Crown while training with them.

 

[danielG]

I think you need to re-read the post you quoted and what it was in context to.

It was a response to the general
Topic not in response to a particular post.

 

[Brant]

Was delisted at the normal time.

Dees punted him preseason after he got into a bit of trouble at Crown while training with them.

I thought we flicked him after a day at the races?

 

[Bedi]

So you don’t think that there’s any truth to the story that his wife’s dad is unwell and she wants to return to Sydney

pretty big yarn to spin to cover up an affair

That's my understanding too. But just saying the timing is mind boggling given what's going on with Patton . Like i said, rumours circulating are beyond laughable, but at the same time I'm trying to get my head around things.

 

[eldorado]

That's my understanding too. But just saying the timing is mind boggling given what's going on with Patton . Like i said, rumours circulating are beyond laughable, but at the same time I'm trying to get my head around things.

Coincidences happen sometimes, mate...

 

[Bedi]

Coincidences happen sometimes, mate...

Seems more likely than not, but interested to hear if that was the consensus.

 

[Tiger71]

Hey Tiger71, prima facie it looks like he might have something to answer, but the intent of the legislation is to catch serious sex offenders, it would likely not be applied in this instance when the complainants went public rather than file a complaint with the Police. The legislation is SECTION 474.17 CRIMINAL CODE ACT 1995

I've done briefs of evidence on similar legislation and it can be tricky to prove. The following have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

1. Did Patton use a carriage service - Yep, got him there - if the victims have unedited copies of his texts for context. (note only edited texts have been produced in the media)
2. He did so in a way that a reasonable person would find menacing (no), harassing (no - need to be to the same person multiple times - sometimes an objection is required), or offensive. - This is where the reasonable person part comes into it, the standard of care required of the person who suffered harm is that of a reasonable person in that person’s position, to be determined on the basis of what the person knew or ought to have known at the time. The victim sends nude pics of herself out - would it be reasonable for her to find nude pics offensive when receiving them? I can't see any magistrate in the land agreeing that a nude model would find nudity offensive. As stated previously, that doesn't mean she can't be offended - she has every right to be.
3. that the person charged is the person who committed the offense - Yep, might have to do a dick line up but I reckon it's him.

There aren't any mens rea clauses (reckless, intentional, knowingly etc) so he is probably gone there.

There have been 3 complaints, and all the victims knew each other (according to the most outspoken victim) prior to the pics. Let that sink in for a minute. Patton is one hell of an unlucky bloke, it is unlikely that of the (thousands?) of dick pics he has sent out the only women to complain knew each other; a possible explanation is they are attention-seeking and sought to boost their profile, another explanation is that that they all worked together at OnlyFans and were disappointed when Patton showed them dick pics instead of paying for their nude pics. There are probably other explanations as well including a conspiracy to set Patton up. Or maybe Patton just treats OnlyFans as a dating site and thought it was ok to send them his pics, remember at least one of the victims (Ella) offered to have sex with Patton after seeing the dick pic. The chances of him being a serial dick pic sender to random people who just happen to know each other is dreadfully small.

Patton has denied the allegations but whether he is found guilty or not he has already been convicted in the public's eye, his career is toast.

I am not defending sending dic pics unsolicited, I think it is stupid, women don't dig it (even good pics with nice lighting) and it will almost always come back to bite you in the arse (my Mrs still has a dic pic I sent her 4 years ago - god knows what she is going to do with that in family court). I think Patton was an idiot for sending it out to strangers, but I do not think he should be thought of as a sex offender - he strikes me as an arrogant, inconsiderate dickhead who thinks he is a playa. I think at least one of the accusers has more malice in her actions than Patton exhibited in sending the pic.

Im not a lawyer but you are stretching with point 2. From what I have seen and most have I would think, there is not just 3 people he has texted. Some of the texts are disgusting and when told to stop he responds with another image and says "lets **** it out". So as to the receiver being offended, I would think would be beyond question when they have responded with "stop sending me this" or you are harassing me etc.

Again, a lot of us dont know the inside news, only from what has been made public. Also your nude model example, you suggesting because she poses nude she cant be sexually harassed by someone sending her unsolicited video's of masturbation and pics ? You see a judge would understand nudity is not offensive but when it has been sent multipule times with graphic videos after being told to stop, I doubt he would be so understanding.

Also I checked what I could via channels from work. I have to be careful here as I dont want to get in trouble but from the information we have had to pass on to the police, its been way more then just 3 instances of complaint and not all went public first. The ACT can be used in this case imo.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Im not a lawyer but you are stretching with point 2. From what I have seen and most have I would think, there is not just 3 people he has texted. Some of the texts are disgusting and when told to stop he responds with another image and says "lets fu** it out". So as to the receiver being offended, I would think would be beyond question when they have responded with "stop sending me this" or you are harassing me etc.

Again, a lot of us dont know the inside news, only from what has been made public. Also your nude model example, you suggesting because she poses nude she cant be sexually harassed by someone sending her unsolicited video's of masturbation and pics ? You see a judge would understand nudity is not offensive but when it has been sent multipule times with graphic videos after being told to stop, I doubt he would be so understanding.

Also I checked what I could via channels from work. I have to be careful here as I dont want to get in trouble but from the information we have had to pass on to the police, its been way more then just 3 instances of complaint and not all went public first. The ACT can be used in this case imo.

Your posts and clarification are much appreciated!

 

[mick]

Im not a lawyer but you are stretching with point 2. From what I have seen and most have I would think, there is not just 3 people he has texted. Some of the texts are disgusting and when told to stop he responds with another image and says "lets fu** it out". So as to the receiver being offended, I would think would be beyond question when they have responded with "stop sending me this" or you are harassing me etc.

Again, a lot of us dont know the inside news, only from what has been made public. Also your nude model example, you suggesting because she poses nude she cant be sexually harassed by someone sending her unsolicited video's of masturbation and pics ? You see a judge would understand nudity is not offensive but when it has been sent multipule times with graphic videos after being told to stop, I doubt he would be so understanding.

Also I checked what I could via channels from work. I have to be careful here as I dont want to get in trouble but from the information we have had to pass on to the police, its been way more then just 3 instances of complaint and not all went public first. The ACT can be used in this case imo.

I get where you are coming from but I might not have made myself clear. Nude models can certainly be sexually harassed and it is an offence to do so, same with prostitutes and male strippers - my argument is that sending nude pics to a nude model who is offering to have sex with you is NOT sexual harrassment, if she has not objected - and only raises concerns months later. All of the public media regarding Patton refers to only 3 victims, despite there being a "me too" movement promulgated by one of the alleged victims.


There is no evidence ( or public claims made by the victims) that the victims asked Patton to stop, in the texts that the victim released to the media, she continued the conversation and did not complain about the pic. If you have seen different I'll take your word for it, it iwould be surprising though that the Victim edited her complaint out of the text she provided the media.

Is the picture unsolicited if the victim offered to send Patton a comparable video/Pic but with a fee? It could be interpreted that there is implied consent. From everything I have seen PAtton did not send anything that the women have not offered to subscribers for a fee.

Your claims of far more victims being involved on the basis of heresay information, by a source who is breaking all sorts of FOI and priveledged information just sounds like office gossip bullshit - I have no doubt ALL of Pattons subscriber information has been requested by the Police, but they do NOT advise the telcom companies of the particulars. It comes in the form of an RFI request and does not provide case particulars - How your "contacts"have determined there are multiple victims rather than Patton making multiple text messages and MMRs is nonsensical. Your "source"is full of shit.

As you are not a lawyer, let me give you a tip, by saying "From the information we have had to pass on to the police, its been way more then just 3 instances of complaint" You can lose your job, damage the police case and be charged with libel, should it not be true. Posting that is as stupid as Patton sending nude pics except far more damaging; You make your telecom company look like unprofessional twats, further besmirch Pattons reputation with no evidence and damage his recovery from what must be an extraordinary stressful state of affair, all based on what appears to be bullshit.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Bloody hell, let’s just make out like it’s all a witch-hunt, and those pesky women who dared to look sexy once had an agenda, and anyway they had it coming, eh.

Sounds like a great way to deal with the impending removal of Patton from the list.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I get where you are coming from but I might not have made myself clear. Nude models can certainly be sexually harassed and it is an offence to do so, same with prostitutes and male strippers - my argument is that sending nude pics to a nude model who is offering to have sex with you is NOT sexual harrassment, if she has not objected - and only raises concerns months later. All of the public media regarding Patton refers to only 3 victims, despite there being a "me too" movement promulgated by one of the alleged victims.


There is no evidence ( or public claims made by the victims) that the victims asked Patton to stop, in the texts that the victim released to the media, she continued the conversation and did not complain about the pic. If you have seen different I'll take your word for it, it iwould be surprising though that the Victim edited her complaint out of the text she provided the media.

Is the picture unsolicited if the victim offered to send Patton a comparable video/Pic but with a fee? It could be interpreted that there is implied consent. From everything I have seen PAtton did not send anything that the women have not offered to subscribers for a fee.

Your claims of far more victims being involved on the basis of heresay information, by a source who is breaking all sorts of FOI and priveledged information just sounds like office gossip bullshit - I have no doubt ALL of Pattons subscriber information has been requested by the Police, but they do NOT advise the telcom companies of the particulars. It comes in the form of an RFI request and does not provide case particulars - How your "contacts"have determined there are multiple victims rather than Patton making multiple text messages and MMRs is nonsensical. Your "source"is full of sh*t.

As you are not a lawyer, let me give you a tip, by saying "From the information we have had to pass on to the police, its been way more then just 3 instances of complaint" You can lose your job, damage the police case and be charged with libel, should it not be true. Posting that is as stupid as Patton sending nude pics except far more damaging; You make your telecom company look like unprofessional twats, further besmirch Pattons reputation with no evidence and damage his recovery from what must be an extraordinary stressful state of affair, all based on what appears to be bullshit.

It’s only libel if it’s not true - so if he’s not lying then he’ll be fine. Australian defamation laws weigh on harm to someone’s reputation - the cat’s out of the bag on Patton so something tells me that Mr Tiger71 will be safe from any legal threats.

Your other points are baffling. You’re suggesting it’s okay to send dick pics to a woman without consent if she has an Onlyfans account because clearly if she’s chosen that line of revenue she’s ‘asking for it’? Also sending dick pics doesn’t need a woman to verbally/textually object to it after the fact for it to be questionable and possible illegal behaviour. This isn’t an office environment where you have potentially inadvertently made someone uncomfortable and they’ve informed you of such. This goes beyond sexual harassment. Much like someone doesn’t have to outwardly protest to being flashed at a train station - it’s a crime regardless of any stated objection.

You’re also accusing someone of acting as an authority on information on the case from an uninformed position. You don’t know how many victims there areyou don’t know the full content of each chain of messages.

 

[rei154]

I get where you are coming from but I might not have made myself clear. Nude models can certainly be sexually harassed and it is an offence to do so, same with prostitutes and male strippers - my argument is that sending nude pics to a nude model who is offering to have sex with you is NOT sexual harrassment, if she has not objected - and only raises concerns months later. All of the public media regarding Patton refers to only 3 victims, despite there being a "me too" movement promulgated by one of the alleged victims.


There is no evidence ( or public claims made by the victims) that the victims asked Patton to stop, in the texts that the victim released to the media, she continued the conversation and did not complain about the pic. If you have seen different I'll take your word for it, it iwould be surprising though that the Victim edited her complaint out of the text she provided the media.

Is the picture unsolicited if the victim offered to send Patton a comparable video/Pic but with a fee? It could be interpreted that there is implied consent. From everything I have seen PAtton did not send anything that the women have not offered to subscribers for a fee.

Your claims of far more victims being involved on the basis of heresay information, by a source who is breaking all sorts of FOI and priveledged information just sounds like office gossip bullshit - I have no doubt ALL of Pattons subscriber information has been requested by the Police, but they do NOT advise the telcom companies of the particulars. It comes in the form of an RFI request and does not provide case particulars - How your "contacts"have determined there are multiple victims rather than Patton making multiple text messages and MMRs is nonsensical. Your "source"is full of sh*t.

As you are not a lawyer, let me give you a tip, by saying "From the information we have had to pass on to the police, its been way more then just 3 instances of complaint" You can lose your job, damage the police case and be charged with libel, should it not be true. Posting that is as stupid as Patton sending nude pics except far more damaging; You make your telecom company look like unprofessional twats, further besmirch Pattons reputation with no evidence and damage his recovery from what must be an extraordinary stressful state of affair, all based on what appears to be bullshit.

your first paragraph: there is a difference between unsolicited nudes and a sexual contract. Ie if I am flirting with someone one day and we sext a bit, I am NOT entitled to send them a picture of my little general a few days later out of a sexual context. Sometimes it takes people a long while to understand/unpack their thoughts relating to a behaviour someone has committed, just because they waited months to come out and speak about it publicly doesn't mean that it wasn't an issue before that. There is also evidence from at least 6 different women that I've seen, not to mention the stories about how he has explained his 'game' with women.

Second paragraph: there is evidence of them telling him to stop, and him abusing them afterwards.

third paragraph: there's a massive difference here- they CHARGE a fee and receive payment prior to the pictures, which is a form of consent. What your statement here reads as is I could send you a picture of my bung hole then charge you for it and it would be okay.


The final two paragraphs I can't comment on but there's some real reaching going on in the rest of it.

 

[TylerDurden]

Bloody hell, let’s just make out like it’s all a witch-hunt, and those pesky women who dared to look sexy once had an agenda, and anyway they had it coming, eh.

Sounds like a great way to deal with the impending removal of Patton from the list.

It's ok, Slobbo has already done that for him.

 

[mick]

. You’re suggesting it’s okay to send dick pics to a woman without consent if she has an Onlyfans account because clearly if she’s chosen that line of revenue she’s ‘asking for it’?

No, not what I said or am saying at all. I'm saying it could be implied consent, for example, If I offer to send a girl a dic pic, is she committing an offense by sending me a pic of her breasts uninvited? Look, I'll be upfront and say that I don't know when the right to send a dick pic is, but apparently, it is done a lot. If I was a young good looking rooster who liked to show his dick, I could talk myself into thinking that a nude model won't be offended by a bit of nudity. I'd be a w***er for thinking that, but it isn't illegal to be a w***er (unless you send a video of it to someone unsolicited)

There is a legal difference in something being offensive and someone being offended. I can tell a cold calling solar panel sales person to bugger off, they can be offended, but I haven't legally used a carriage service to be offensive. If another person joined Lady Godiva and nuded up in main street with her, Lady Godiva cannot logically find offense at the other person's nudity. It's got to do with the reasonable person test - I am not disparaging their vocation or morals. It would be just as difficult for a Tom Jones to claim sexual harassment for knickers getting thrown at him, when he has not previously found offense with it. I am not, in any way saying it is OK to send nude pics unsolicited, I am saying it isn't necessarily an offense under the Criminal Code when all the facts are taken into consideration.

You don’t know how many victims there are you don’t know the full content of each chain of messages

I agree, I have only commented on the pictures that I have seen and the accompanying text messages, which indicates that Elle Coonan either gave differing accounts to different media outlets or she was misreported. She did not object to the images at the time they were sent according to the accompanying texts. The text and context were provided by Coonan. This doesn't make what Patton did ok, but it doesn't make him a sex offender either. The presumption of innocence is a pretty sacred thing, Guilty or Not, Patton is essentially a dead duck now. Let's say the AFL completes this investigation and finds that at the time Patton was engaging in consensual flirtatious behavior with these women, they offered to send Patton nude pics and did not object at the time to Patton's images - except for him not providing a NSFW warning for the video he sent to the woman who opened his message in Collins st. Even if he is found innocent of any wrongdoing he is still cooked.

. It’s only libel if it’s not true - so if he’s not lying then he’ll be fine

No, he has revealed personal information about a subscriber his telco company has received relating to a Police request. That is a breach of privacy laws, his company corporate ethics, and his own obligations under the privacy act - it would be better for him if he were lying, I can't imagine Patton suing some big footy liar for libel - the courts would be bursting.

"rei154" - Second paragraph: there is evidence of them telling him to stop, and him abusing them afterwards.

The only public evidence I have seen like this was an edited post on Instagram, which appeared to show Patton being misogynistic, rude, and a total dick. He said something like "chicks like you are a dime dozen anyway" after getting rejected. (I can't remember the exact wording. I don't recall there being evidence that he posted another dic pic to her after this. I hasten to add the screenshot that was shown wasn't the full conversation. I wouldn't want to hang a man on what I saw. Then again, I must admit, after reading it I was convinced Patton was a person to be removed from the club asap. I only became suspicious about the allegations against Patton when one of the victims said they all knew each other before the pics were received.

I understand the anger about Patton, I understand that he looks like a douche. I can see why people think there is some victim-blaming going on but seriously there is something not right with this whole picture. I do not want to minimize what the victims have gone through but when I see the consequences to Patton it really makes me want to be sure that these women were actually negatively impacted by Pattons behavior and it isn't some sort of schoolgirl payback.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

mick if a woman nudes up at a climate change protest, yes they can’t claim criminality of the dozens around them that do the same. However, if a guy starts jerking off next to her - he absolutely could be charged. Your interpretations are honestly way off. This isn’t a case of ‘oops forgot to say NSFW’ - this is honest to god sexual misconduct and there’s no way to wrap that up any differently.

 

[mick]

mick if a woman nudes up at a climate change protest, yes they can’t claim criminality of the dozens around them that do the same. However, if a guy starts jerking off next to her - he absolutely could be charged. Your interpretations are honestly way off. This isn’t a case of ‘oops forgot to say NSFW’ - this is honest to god sexual misconduct and there’s no way to wrap that up any differently.

My interpretation is good, tested by the court, and found to be right.

Who thought Craig Mclachlan was guilty?, he kissed women without consent, touched them, rubbed genitalia - guess what, Magistrate agreed all of the accusations in principle but Mclachlan was not guilty. From the magistrate - "I am unable to exclude the possibility that an egotistical, self-entitled sense of humour led the accused to genuinely think that CC was consenting to his actions,". In other words, If Patton, who is accused of a far lesser crime thought that his advances were ok - then he will not get convicted of anything. What is shit is my analogies. I find trying to explain a reasonable person test in anything other than legalese very difficult. I am not having a crack at sex workers or nude models or suggesting in anyway crimes against them should be considered differently.

Sexual misconduct heh? Yeah, I agree with that. It is a non-criminal violation of another person's personal boundary in the area of sexuality and intimate personal relationships. That's what sexual misconduct is (google it) - non-criminal, which is what I have been saying all along. He is a w***er just not one that is going to be charged with an offence, it will never get past DPP.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Hey mick, you do realise that you can say that Patton doesn’t have any criminal charges to worry about without doing the whole “it’s a conspiracy against him by 3 girls who knew each other ” thing, don’t you?

It’s pretty clear that you’ve not seen a number of the screenshots that show he’s got a serious issue with badgering women he does not know, and some over a period of years.

 

[rei154]

"rei154" - Second paragraph: there is evidence of them telling him to stop, and him abusing them afterwards.

The only public evidence I have seen like this was an edited post on Instagram, which appeared to show Patton being misogynistic, rude, and a total dick. He said something like "chicks like you are a dime dozen anyway" after getting rejected. (I can't remember the exact wording. I don't recall there being evidence that he posted another dic pic to her after this. I hasten to add the screenshot that was shown wasn't the full conversation. I wouldn't want to hang a man on what I saw. Then again, I must admit, after reading it I was convinced Patton was a person to be removed from the club asap. I only became suspicious about the allegations against Patton when one of the victims said they all knew each other before the pics were received.

I understand the anger about Patton, I understand that he looks like a douche. I can see why people think there is some victim-blaming going on but seriously there is something not right with this whole picture. I do not want to minimize what the victims have gone through but when I see the consequences to Patton it really makes me want to be sure that these women were actually negatively impacted by Pattons behavior and it isn't some sort of schoolgirl payback.

I'd say cast your net wider to see some of the other stuff that's been said/done. I'd say the biggest issue is video-calling someone out of the blue whilst having a tug.
The reason why the victims have all known eachother is because the ones who have come forward are all instagram 'influencers' and have interacted in that scape- it also speaks to the fact that victims of sexual harassment and abuse don't/won't speak up unless they know they'll have some form of support/ backing with what's occurred.
I'd say to say he looks like a douche is an understatement and downplays what he's being accused of. The problem in these situations is people focus on the image of the whole thing as opposed to the actions. As far as I'm concerned his image is the least of his worries and I hope the mental health treatment he's receiving helps him to realise that too.