News Welcome to Hawthorn Jon Patton : Retired

[Gralin]

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 sh*t 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.

You left out the part where the magistrate said if he'd done it more recently after laws had changed that the outcome likely would have been different

 

[mick]

You left out the part where the magistrate said if he'd done it more recently after laws had changed that the outcome likely would have been different

Yes I did leave that out - relevance. The magistrate did not say that an outcome would likely have been different, at least not in the court record, she said one of the charges (the vampire kisses) may have been different. This is not to say that the other elements of the offense were proven. Or indeed whether the defence would have taken a different tac had he been defending under the current legislation.

The lack of consent is still needed to be proven beyond reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. There is also the issue of what the court deems to be offensive. There is also the contradictory nature of Patton's victim's public testimony.

You might think Patton deserves a 3-year jail sentence, you might think that I am victim bashing 3 innocent girls who were taken advantage of by a worldy entitled footballer who spends his spare time going though instagram looking for young women to shock with a Dick Pik. That's fine, you can believe what you want, sure as sh1t I'm not going to change your mind. I would like you to consider the implications of what has happened to Patton should these accusations be exaggerated or taken out of context. Even if the accusations are 100% as the victims claim, getting a conviction is nigh on impossible. If a nun or a 16 year old girl comes forward with a picture of Patons privates - there is a chance he could get convicted - not saying that is fair, but it is the reality.

Think of an event you have known well about before it going to the media, think of how different what you know about the incident compares with what was shown on the news -particularly with he said/she said media pieces. Then tell me you are comfortable with how Patton has been kangaroo courted.

I can't say I feel sorry for him, but gee he has already paid a pretty big price for sending the pics, Dontcha think?

 

[CHUBBSS]

Yes I did leave that out - relevance. The magistrate did not say that an outcome would likely have been different, at least not in the court record, she said one of the charges (the vampire kisses) may have been different. This is not to say that the other elements of the offense were proven. Or indeed whether the defence would have taken a different tac had he been defending under the current legislation.

The lack of consent is still needed to be proven beyond reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. There is also the issue of what the court deems to be offensive. There is also the contradictory nature of Patton's victim's public testimony.

You might think Patton deserves a 3-year jail sentence, you might think that I am victim bashing 3 innocent girls who were taken advantage of by a worldy entitled footballer who spends his spare time going though instagram looking for young women to shock with a Dick Pik. That's fine, you can believe what you want, sure as sh1t I'm not going to change your mind. I would like you to consider the implications of what has happened to Patton should these accusations be exaggerated or taken out of context. Even if the accusations are 100% as the victims claim, getting a conviction is nigh on impossible. If a nun or a 16 year old girl comes forward with a picture of Patons privates - there is a chance he could get convicted - not saying that is fair, but it is the reality.

Think of an event you have known well about before it going to the media, think of how different what you know about the incident compares with what was shown on the news -particularly with he said/she said media pieces. Then tell me you are comfortable with how Patton has been kangaroo courted.

I can't say I feel sorry for him, but gee he has already paid a pretty big price for sending the pics, Dontcha think?

You aren’t johns dad by chance?

 

[Gralin]

Yes I did leave that out - relevance. The magistrate did not say that an outcome would likely have been different, at least not in the court record, she said one of the charges (the vampire kisses) may have been different. This is not to say that the other elements of the offense were proven. Or indeed whether the defence would have taken a different tac had he been defending under the current legislation.

The lack of consent is still needed to be proven beyond reasonable doubt to obtain a conviction. There is also the issue of what the court deems to be offensive. There is also the contradictory nature of Patton's victim's public testimony.

You might think Patton deserves a 3-year jail sentence, you might think that I am victim bashing 3 innocent girls who were taken advantage of by a worldy entitled footballer who spends his spare time going though instagram looking for young women to shock with a Dick Pik. That's fine, you can believe what you want, sure as sh1t I'm not going to change your mind. I would like you to consider the implications of what has happened to Patton should these accusations be exaggerated or taken out of context. Even if the accusations are 100% as the victims claim, getting a conviction is nigh on impossible. If a nun or a 16 year old girl comes forward with a picture of Patons privates - there is a chance he could get convicted - not saying that is fair, but it is the reality.

Think of an event you have known well about before it going to the media, think of how different what you know about the incident compares with what was shown on the news -particularly with he said/she said media pieces. Then tell me you are comfortable with how Patton has been kangaroo courted.

I can't say I feel sorry for him, but gee he has already paid a pretty big price for sending the pics, Dontcha think?

I think the legal system is setup to be against the victims of sexual assault and that using the very ****ing low bar of what people can legally get away with as justification for actions says a lot about how people think.

You've pretty much hit every single stereotyoe for victim blaming across your posts and used the shitty excuse for a legal system we have as a way to back it up.

You also seem more interested in feeling sorry for Patton than you do for anyone else involved, why is that?

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I think the legal system is setup to be against the victims of sexual assault and that using the very ******* low bar of what people can legally get away with as justification for actions says a lot about how people think.

You've pretty much hit every single stereotyoe for victim blaming across your posts and used the shitty excuse for a legal system we have as a way to back it up.

You also seem more interested in feeling sorry for Patton than you do for anyone else involved, why is that?

Coming across very Dale Kerrigan like:

“He got caught up with the wrong crowd - he didn't mean to rob the petrol station! Now he's sorry.”

 

[Ned Ryerson]

Interesting, Mick, you claim to not be making character assessments on the women involved but then suggest that if a nun received a dick pic from Patton he’d be in trouble. So good to know via this assessment that sending a dick pic only devolves into criminality if you send it to a chaste woman - if you have an onlyfans account you’re clearly asking for it and exchanging your protection under the law.

Also the quote “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.”. Having read the text exchange that is freely available on media websites (well, calling the Daily Mail media is a stretch I guess) - Patton says ‘would you make me pay you’ when the woman asks for clarification he states ‘to ****’ to which the woman responds ‘I’m not an escort’. The woman also apprently directed Patton to her onlyfans if he wanted naked pictures. That is not flirtation or an invitation to see Patton’s dick. Onlyfans is a business and doesn’t mean a woman is opening herself to dick pics for **** sake. Thinking this is a fair point to make honestly puts you in the ‘she was asking for it, look what she’s wearing’ camp.

Despite your protestations - the subtext of your posts makes your feelings towards women quite apparent in my opinion. Not at all surprising you’re trying to paint Patton as the victim here.

 

[mick]

I think the legal system is setup to be against the victims of sexual assault and that using the very ******* low bar of what people can legally get away with as justification for actions says a lot about how people think.

You've pretty much hit every single stereotyoe for victim blaming across your posts and used the shitty excuse for a legal system we have as a way to back it up.

You also seem more interested in feeling sorry for Patton than you do for anyone else involved, why is that?

In what way have I justified Pattons actions? I have agreed that at a minimum he has committed sexual misconduct. I have said that due to our legal system he is unlikely to be charged. That isn't excusing Patton in any way. You can take it as a slight against our legal system if you want, but balancing protecting the innocent against convicting the guilty is a tough gig. I do think we should hear his side of the story, or at least the AFL investigations side of the story before we all convict Patton in our own minds though.

Yes, the legal system is set up to prioritise the presumption of innocence and makes it hard for victims of sex crimes to get justice. This is why I was pointing out that OnlyFans sex workers will have difficulty claiming to find nude images offensive in a court of law. That isn't victim blaming.

It is not victim blaming to point out that some victims may be more traumatised by an event than others. If you think I have hit every single stereotype for victim-blaming - you do not know what the term means, let alone have an appreciation of what genuine victims of this go through. Victim blaming would be if I stated that Elle Coonan deserved to be sent an unsolicited dick pic because she sends nude pictures of herself. I went to great lengths to say this wasn't the case. No-one deserves unsolicited dick pick. However, was Elle offended enough to stop talking to Patton? The provided text says no, she stated that he started talking sex "from the get go" yet continued correspondence for a month afterward. Again, not victim blaming, that is providing context.

I have said multiple times I do not feel sorry for Patton, actually, in my previous post, it was close to the last thing I said.

The minute I saw that edited instagram from maggie carter - I wanted Patton gone. I was as outraged as you. I'd still be wanting to burn Patton at the stake if that was all I had read about it. If you do not see anything contradictory in Coonan and Kearnan's public statements then either you are not looking hard enough or I am looking too hard.

If I have got anything factually incorrect - let me know, my references are only from what I have read online that has been supported by major media with direct quotes. There are other references to him banging Scully's sister, and the woman who received a video of him masturbating, or a big footy poster who says that contacts at work tell him that Patton is being investigated for many more instances (which is not something a telecommunications worker should be saying online) but I can't verify the source for those, and some just do not make sense.

1. Let me say it again, John Patton appears to have done something very stupid, misogynistic and likely a form of sexual misconduct.
2. I do not think John Patton could be charged and convicted of an offense under the Crimes Act. ( I am not making a value judgment on this, the legal system may well be wrong in the way these cases are handled)
3. The victims have done NOTHING wrong, unless they have misrepresented what Patton has done.
4. I think almost everyone was too quick to judge the guilt and degree of guilt of Patton, including myself
5. I do NOT feel sorry for Patton, but I do believe he has already paid a high price for his actions, whatever comes next is just a cherry on top of what vindication the victims have already received by seeing him humiliated and placed in a hospital for his own mental health)

 

[mick]

Interesting, Mick, you claim to not be making character assessments on the women involved but then suggest that if a nun received a dick pic from Patton he’d be in trouble. So good to know via this assessment that sending a dick pic only devolves into criminality if you send it to a chaste woman - if you have an onlyfans account you’re clearly asking for it and exchanging your protection under the law.

Also the quote “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.”. Having read the text exchange that is freely available on media websites (well, calling the Daily Mail media is a stretch I guess) - Patton says ‘would you make me pay you’ when the woman asks for clarification he states ‘to fu**’ to which the woman responds ‘I’m not an escort’. The woman also apprently directed Patton to her onlyfans if he wanted naked pictures. That is not flirtation or an invitation to see Patton’s dick. Onlyfans is a business and doesn’t mean a woman is opening herself to dick pics for fu** sake. Thinking this is a fair point to make honestly puts you in the ‘she was asking for it, look what she’s wearing’ camp.

Despite your protestations - the subtext of your posts makes your feelings towards women quite apparent in my opinion. Not at all surprising you’re trying to paint Patton as the victim here.

Well, I can honestly say that we interpreted the Daily Mail quotes differently. I did see her willingness to travel to Melbourne - "for the mems" as flirtatious or at least accomodating. I read the "I'm not an escort" as being I won't charge you for sex. I thought her smiley face after "I'm going to suck your toes" as being flirtatious as well.

Maybe I am sexist, I'm a middle-aged, privileged white male, it would be surprising if I wasn't at least unintentionally sexist. I don't mean to be and don't consciously think misogynistic thoughts. I also suffer from Hawthorn bias, I wouldn't have it that Hodge and Mitchell intentionally corked opposition players as a part of their game plan.

I am quite willing to admit that I have it all wrong if the AFL investigation indicates that Patton acted with malice, but all biases and prejudices aside, I do not think Patton will be charged with an Indictable Offence even if the AFL says he is a complete horror show.

 

[mick]

Interesting, Mick, you claim to not be making character assessments on the women involved but then suggest that if a nun received a dick pic from Patton he’d be in trouble. So good to know via this assessment that sending a dick pic only devolves into criminality if you send it to a chaste woman - if you have an onlyfans account you’re clearly asking for it and exchanging your protection under the law.

What I said was
"If a nun or a 16 year old girl comes forward with a picture of Patons privates - there is a chance he could get convicted - not saying that is fair, but it is the reality."

When giving evidence to the court the victim is to express the impact that victimisation has had on their life in their own terms. So, Elle Coonan can say "Seeing that penis picture unsolicited caused me enormous pain and anguish, I haven't been able to sleep properly since, not to mention the effect it has had on my social media life, I do not know if I will ever recover" I don't mean to make it sound trite, I am sure she was offended by the pic, but can you see how the same words from a nun or child would have a greater impact on the court? Not only that, but if the defence can indicate that a reasonable person, with Elle's own experiences, would not normally find a picture of a penis offensive - then the Prosecution has lost an element of the offence and Patton walks.

Do you get it? It isn't saying some people deserve to be flashed and others don't, its about whether the pic is offensive in that circumstance and the impact it has on the victim

 

[Brant]

mick
It's silly the feedback you're getting (you're obviously a Copper IMO) - you're providing information based on how you see it playing out from a legal perspective, not an ethical or moral perspective - you're not excusing Patton's alleged behaviour/s, you're suggesting that a Court may not find him guilty given your experience re: 'reasonable person' interpretation & application.

If my assumption on your profession is correct, you'll be well learned in the difference between 'the way it's written' & 'the way it works'. To my reading, that's the point you're making - others are arguing with you on a different plane & so your point will never (in this context) be heard.

Perhaps re-visit if he is/isn't charged.

To those making legends of themselves without appreciating Mick's perspective - perhaps ask for his reasoning (for his opinion) instead of dickheading him (or yourselves?) as to suggesting he's incorrect?

Once we know his perspective &/or reasoning for her/his perspective, we might be in a better informed place to argue/comment.

 

[The Spirit of Cricket]

it may just be the beer talking but I gotta say that this whole thread is ****en stupid

 

[mick]

Pretty close re job Brant, I thought I made my position clear, Patton appears to have done the wrong thing, but there is a blurry line between stuff that is wrong and offences you can get charged with, and sometimes there are things that are illegal but aren't that "wrong".

I'll give you a sex offender example of where things can go pear shaped. Joe Pedo was a young fellow who has never had relations, he had a girlfriend who is of legal age. She says she wants to save herself for marriage. Joe is frustrated, he goes online and sees a silicone sex doll for sale in China. He wants to practice the act for his fiancee and relieve his blue balls. Joe orders the cheapest model, it's cheap coz it doesn't use a lot of silicone, the 44d, big arse models cost a mint, Joe went with small breasts and a tiny waist because he is saving up for the wedding. On doll's arrival in Oz Australian Border Force/Customs check it out and decide it is a child sex doll. It has small breasts, small body and ticks all the boxes of being prohibited import. Joe Admits to importing the doll, and is charged and convicted (no Jail time -just court costs and probation) - Joe is now a sex offender, every time there is a sexual assault in his suburb he gets a knock at the door from the constabulary, He has trouble getting a police clearance check, he is adversely recorded AUSTRAC and his finances are monitored to a greater degree than the average Joe, He has trouble travelling overseas - his honeymoon to the Philippines was a nightmare getting into the country -the Austalian Federal Police had advised PH Customs that he was a sex offender - a child sex offender. Of course on his return to Australia he got thoroughly interrogated by ABF/AFP. See where I am going? Joe wasn't a flash footy player who everyone read about as being a sex offender - he was a nobody who didn't know the law and he was rightly dicked around. If someone hears Joe is convicted of a Child Sex offence - what kind of reaction do you think will have without knowing the full facts. My point is - we don't, and probably never will know the facts of Pattons activities, but he has already suffered more than Joe.

One of the other reasons I might be unreasonable in my assessment of the Patton incident is that the witnesses did not initially go to the police instead they destroyed Pattons reputation (maybe deservedly so), in retrospect that might have actually been the best thing they could have done for themselves and it does highlight the failings in the legal system when it comes to sex offences. I have to admit though, it really rubs me the wrong way and encourages vigilantism. Justice may have already been served but Patton has not had his day in court and hasn't had the opportunity to face his accusers. I really do hope he did the things he is accused of, because if he is innocent...

 

[Hawk Hawkins]

Ah, Big Footy: the place I come to understand nuanced social complexities of sexual consent.

 

[Brishawk]

Pretty close re job Brant, I thought I made my position clear, Patton appears to have done the wrong thing, but there is a blurry line between stuff that is wrong and offences you can get charged with, and sometimes there are things that are illegal but aren't that "wrong".

I'll give you a sex offender example of where things can go pear shaped. Joe Pedo was a young fellow who has never had relations, he had a girlfriend who is of legal age. She says she wants to save herself for marriage. Joe is frustrated, he goes online and sees a silicone sex doll for sale in China. He wants to practice the act for his fiancee and relieve his blue balls. Joe orders the cheapest model, it's cheap coz it doesn't use a lot of silicone, the 44d, big arse models cost a mint, Joe went with small breasts and a tiny waist because he is saving up for the wedding. On doll's arrival in Oz Australian Border Force/Customs check it out and decide it is a child sex doll. It has small breasts, small body and ticks all the boxes of being prohibited import. Joe Admits to importing the doll, and is charged and convicted (no Jail time -just court costs and probation) - Joe is now a sex offender, every time there is a sexual assault in his suburb he gets a knock at the door from the constabulary, He has trouble getting a police clearance check, he is adversely recorded AUSTRAC and his finances are monitored to a greater degree than the average Joe, He has trouble travelling overseas - his honeymoon to the Philippines was a nightmare getting into the country -the Austalian Federal Police had advised PH Customs that he was a sex offender - a child sex offender. Of course on his return to Australia he got thoroughly interrogated by ABF/AFP. See where I am going? Joe wasn't a flash footy player who everyone read about as being a sex offender - he was a nobody who didn't know the law and he was rightly dicked around. If someone hears Joe is convicted of a Child Sex offence - what kind of reaction do you think will have without knowing the full facts. My point is - we don't, and probably never will know the facts of Pattons activities, but he has already suffered more than Joe.

One of the other reasons I might be unreasonable in my assessment of the Patton incident is that the witnesses did not initially go to the police instead they destroyed Pattons reputation (maybe deservedly so), in retrospect that might have actually been the best thing they could have done for themselves and it does highlight the failings in the legal system when it comes to sex offences. I have to admit though, it really rubs me the wrong way and encourages vigilantism. Justice may have already been served but Patton has not had his day in court and hasn't had the opportunity to face his accusers. I really do hope he did the things he is accused of, because if he is innocent...

Every post you make has an implicit or explicit caveat around the intentions of the three women who knew each other. There is literally no evidence of them colluding with nefarious intent but you have thrown it out there and in this post you again question whether the accusations are founded.

I got to tell you that we don’t know all the details but we know the club and the league are treating this very seriously. That tells us something. Speculating on their sincerity with essentially no evidence while suggesting people are being presumptuous for suggesting Patton will be charged comes across as inconsistent.

 

[mick]

It is beyond pointless posting stuff that people deliberately try to misconstrue, but I can't help myself.

The post you quoted made no mention of the women colluding let alone with "nefarious intent". Whether they went public in collaboration or individually is irrelevant. They may, in all likelihood think they are telling the truth - but is the truth from their perspective. It is relevant to point out the fallibility of witnesses, I've seen a lot of them and nearly all are imperfect, people are terrible witnesses, victims almost can't help themselves in either downplaying the damage caused to look tough or less stupid or exaggerating to ensure conviction - show me a full transcript of what Patton sent that hasn't been edited and there is a good witness. The AFL investigation might get that, I hope they do.

I am not even making a judgement call on them going public prior to going to the police, I said I don't like it - coz it can stuff people lives up. As I said - it might have been the best decision for them. I did not say people were being presumptuous in saying he would be charged - I said it was unlikely that he would be charged based on my experience. If you have charged someone with a sex offence - tell us about it - how did it go? FFS I have seen flashers get off because the area wasn't "public" enough. I saw a bloke who tied a kid down and made a dog eat dogfoog of his balls get off a gross indecency charge because the kid said the offender wasn't tumescent at the time ergo it wasn't sexually motivated. Sex offence cases are known for there difficulty, just read the Mclachlan evidence and see how he got off. That could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective - in most cases imho it sucks, but it might be worth it to keep innocent people out of jail.

I am not saying him getting off is a good or bad thing. I've seen stuff all evidence, but enough information to make me raise my eyebrows at public statements by the victims, and enough information to let me think that Patton has done something wrong - or at least stupid.

 

[Satchel]

u know I have read a lot of legal arguments in this thread but doesn't it still come back to the fact he acted in a manner that makes it unacceptable for him to represent the Hawthorn Footy Club so that it

OUT

 

[rei154]

u know I have read a lot of legal arguments in this thread but doesn't it still come back to the fact he acted in a manner that makes it unacceptable for him to represent the Hawthorn Footy Club so that it

OUT

Legal semantics aside I think this is something we can all agree on.

 

[mick]

Legal semantics aside I think this is something we can all agree on.

Yep. He is toast

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Pretty close re job Brant, I thought I made my position clear, Patton appears to have done the wrong thing, but there is a blurry line between stuff that is wrong and offences you can get charged with, and sometimes there are things that are illegal but aren't that "wrong".

I'll give you a sex offender example of where things can go pear shaped. Joe Pedo was a young fellow who has never had relations, he had a girlfriend who is of legal age. She says she wants to save herself for marriage. Joe is frustrated, he goes online and sees a silicone sex doll for sale in China. He wants to practice the act for his fiancee and relieve his blue balls. Joe orders the cheapest model, it's cheap coz it doesn't use a lot of silicone, the 44d, big arse models cost a mint, Joe went with small breasts and a tiny waist because he is saving up for the wedding. On doll's arrival in Oz Australian Border Force/Customs check it out and decide it is a child sex doll. It has small breasts, small body and ticks all the boxes of being prohibited import. Joe Admits to importing the doll, and is charged and convicted (no Jail time -just court costs and probation) - Joe is now a sex offender, every time there is a sexual assault in his suburb he gets a knock at the door from the constabulary, He has trouble getting a police clearance check, he is adversely recorded AUSTRAC and his finances are monitored to a greater degree than the average Joe, He has trouble travelling overseas - his honeymoon to the Philippines was a nightmare getting into the country -the Austalian Federal Police had advised PH Customs that he was a sex offender - a child sex offender. Of course on his return to Australia he got thoroughly interrogated by ABF/AFP. See where I am going? Joe wasn't a flash footy player who everyone read about as being a sex offender - he was a nobody who didn't know the law and he was rightly dicked around. If someone hears Joe is convicted of a Child Sex offence - what kind of reaction do you think will have without knowing the full facts. My point is - we don't, and probably never will know the facts of Pattons activities, but he has already suffered more than Joe.

One of the other reasons I might be unreasonable in my assessment of the Patton incident is that the witnesses did not initially go to the police instead they destroyed Pattons reputation (maybe deservedly so), in retrospect that might have actually been the best thing they could have done for themselves and it does highlight the failings in the legal system when it comes to sex offences. I have to admit though, it really rubs me the wrong way and encourages vigilantism. Justice may have already been served but Patton has not had his day in court and hasn't had the opportunity to face his accusers. I really do hope he did the things he is accused of, because if he is innocent...

If there was a part in this story where we were asked to overlook the 5+ years of Joe looking for kids online, then they might be comparable, but unlike Joe, on the available and published evidence Patton has a long history of being a pest by design, in order to play the numbers.

 

[Brishawk]

It is beyond pointless posting stuff that people deliberately try to misconstrue, but I can't help myself.

The post you quoted made no mention of the women colluding let alone with "nefarious intent". Whether they went public in collaboration or individually is irrelevant. They may, in all likelihood think they are telling the truth - but is the truth from their perspective. It is relevant to point out the fallibility of witnesses, I've seen a lot of them and nearly all are imperfect, people are terrible witnesses, victims almost can't help themselves in either downplaying the damage caused to look tough or less stupid or exaggerating to ensure conviction - show me a full transcript of what Patton sent that hasn't been edited and there is a good witness. The AFL investigation might get that, I hope they do.

I am not even making a judgement call on them going public prior to going to the police, I said I don't like it - coz it can stuff people lives up. As I said - it might have been the best decision for them. I did not say people were being presumptuous in saying he would be charged - I said it was unlikely that he would be charged based on my experience. If you have charged someone with a sex offence - tell us about it - how did it go? FFS I have seen flashers get off because the area wasn't "public" enough. I saw a bloke who tied a kid down and made a dog eat dogfoog of his balls get off a gross indecency charge because the kid said the offender wasn't tumescent at the time ergo it wasn't sexually motivated. Sex offence cases are known for there difficulty, just read the Mclachlan evidence and see how he got off. That could be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective - in most cases imho it sucks, but it might be worth it to keep innocent people out of jail.

I am not saying him getting off is a good or bad thing. I've seen stuff all evidence, but enough information to make me raise my eyebrows at public statements by the victims, and enough information to let me think that Patton has done something wrong - or at least stupid.

You are approaching this like patton’s defence lawyer. You spend countless words on potential legal reason he won’t be charged but most people aren’t talking about that for the most part and it is really off putting to go after the credibility of the women and placing them under a large amount of scrutiny but not put Patton under the same level of scrutiny.

Questioning the women for not raising the complaint immediately. Questioning the women because they knew each other. Both are pure speculation on your part. I could just as easily speculate that they did not report the sexual assault out of fear of reprisal and it was only once they talked to each other that they built up the courage to come forward. You don’t explore that side of their behaviour at all which makes you appear one sided and being defensive about Patton. I appreciate your legal interpretations but it isn’t at the heart of what I highlighted.

 

[mick]

You are approaching this like patton’s defence lawyer. You spend countless words on potential legal reason he won’t be charged but most people aren’t talking about that for the most part and it is really off putting to go after the credibility of the women and placing them under a large amount of scrutiny but not put Patton under the same level of scrutiny.

Questioning the women for not raising the complaint immediately. Questioning the women because they knew each other. Both are pure speculation on your part. I could just as easily speculate that they did not report the sexual assault out of fear of reprisal and it was only once they talked to each other that they built up the courage to come forward. You don’t explore that side of their behaviour at all which makes you appear one sided and being defensive about Patton. I appreciate your legal interpretations but it isn’t at the heart of what I highlighted.

WTF are you on about?

My initial post in this thread was to Strapping young lad who posted "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. "

This post wasn't quite accurate,," people who feel like they’ve been harassed or sent offensive or threatening material CANNOT necessarily press charges." How should I approach this post if not like Patton's Lawyer? What would be the point of answering it like his Gardener or mechanic? The title of the section is confusing and misleading - You cannot have someone charged with an offence simply because they offend you over the phone.

Yes, My posts have been one sided, My side is saying that, in my experience, that section of the act would be difficult to apply and get a conviction in this case. Reasons for that difficulty include obtaining the relevant proofs of the offences and the courts reasoning for the application of that section of the Act. I didn't even mention that the victims have zero say in whether a charge is brought forward or not, that is up to the Police and Department of Public Prosecutions - it is not a civil case or torte.

Not once have I said Patton was innocent of doing anything wrong (quite the opposite) and yes, I did point out issues with the victim's public statements that would affect Patton's likely conviction, so what? Are you another person that thinks that is victim blaming? Let me point something out that should be obvious, if you are going to spout invective at someone (Patton) and accuse them of a crime you should always consider and evaluate the reliability and credibility of your source of information. You should look at the accusors statements with a critical eye, what if they are vexatious, nonsensical or just wrong?

For instance Tiger71's post which states " 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.... ". This is a bullshit statement - what regulations? It's the criminal code FFS, there are no Regs for this offence. The legislation does not say it is the same as doing it in person at all - that is just wrong. If that were the case Patton would be innocent of an offence as "flashing" is only an offence in a public place. Then he comes out and infers that Patton must be guilty because the police have asked his telecom employer for lots of information on lots of victims - Really?, how much credibility are you giving this "witness" on his ability to interpret and apply any admitted hearsay, privileged information he might have received? On prima facie evidence, this clown has already broken multiple privacy laws in order to defame Patton. His credibility is very low, and has poor reliabilty. So I ignore his claims completely.

"Questioning the women for not raising the complaint immediately. Questioning the women because they knew each other. Both are pure speculation on your part." Yes it is speculation, based on what the victims have publicly stated. Both points make it more difficult for the prosecution to get a conviction, again that isn't "picking" on the witnesses, it is evaluating their motive and veracity.

You seem to have missed the point of my posts that is; the legal issues with obtaining a conviction of Patton under S. 474.17 of the criminal code. Not sure how I can do that without "being defensive of Patton". Please have another read and tell me where I have said he was justified or right to do what he is accused of.

 

[mick]

If there was a part in this story where we were asked to overlook the 5+ years of Joe looking for kids online, then they might be comparable, but unlike Joe, on the available and published evidence Patton has a long history of being a pest by design, in order to play the numbers.

Ok, You have obviously seen enough information to confirm in your mind that Patton is a serious sex offender. You have absolute faith in the witnesses motivation and credibility and you not only believe that there is enough evidence for the court to convict him, but that the DPP has enough resources to try a Dick pic case against someone who can afford a silk.

Like your initial claim that " people who feel like they’ve been harassed or sent offensive or threatening material can press charges " I respectfully disagree.

 

[5ammy]

My goodness there are some essays in here, how do you find the time Lol

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Ok, You have obviously seen enough information to confirm in your mind that Patton is a serious sex offender. You have absolute faith in the witnesses motivation and credibility and you not only believe that there is enough evidence for the court to convict him, but that the DPP has enough resources to try a Dick pic case against someone who can afford a silk.

Like your initial claim that " people who feel like they’ve been harassed or sent offensive or threatening material can press charges " I respectfully disagree.

Don’t pretend like we’re having a different discussion, we’ve moved on from the charges talk pages ago.

You’re now just here to make out like it’s all not as it seems, questioning the validity of the women’s claims, their relationship and even suggesting a conspiracy to bring Patton down.

It’s all pretty embarrassing to be honest.

 

[Brishawk]

WTF are you on about?

My initial post in this thread was to Strapping young lad who posted "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. "

This post wasn't quite accurate,," people who feel like they’ve been harassed or sent offensive or threatening material CANNOT necessarily press charges." How should I approach this post if not like Patton's Lawyer? What would be the point of answering it like his Gardener or mechanic? The title of the section is confusing and misleading - You cannot have someone charged with an offence simply because they offend you over the phone.

Yes, My posts have been one sided, My side is saying that, in my experience, that section of the act would be difficult to apply and get a conviction in this case. Reasons for that difficulty include obtaining the relevant proofs of the offences and the courts reasoning for the application of that section of the Act. I didn't even mention that the victims have zero say in whether a charge is brought forward or not, that is up to the Police and Department of Public Prosecutions - it is not a civil case or torte.

Not once have I said Patton was innocent of doing anything wrong (quite the opposite) and yes, I did point out issues with the victim's public statements that would affect Patton's likely conviction, so what? Are you another person that thinks that is victim blaming? Let me point something out that should be obvious, if you are going to spout invective at someone (Patton) and accuse them of a crime you should always consider and evaluate the reliability and credibility of your source of information. You should look at the accusors statements with a critical eye, what if they are vexatious, nonsensical or just wrong?

For instance Tiger71's post which states " 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.... ". This is a bullshit statement - what regulations? It's the criminal code FFS, there are no Regs for this offence. The legislation does not say it is the same as doing it in person at all - that is just wrong. If that were the case Patton would be innocent of an offence as "flashing" is only an offence in a public place. Then he comes out and infers that Patton must be guilty because the police have asked his telecom employer for lots of information on lots of victims - Really?, how much credibility are you giving this "witness" on his ability to interpret and apply any admitted hearsay, privileged information he might have received? On prima facie evidence, this clown has already broken multiple privacy laws in order to defame Patton. His credibility is very low, and has poor reliabilty. So I ignore his claims completely.

"Questioning the women for not raising the complaint immediately. Questioning the women because they knew each other. Both are pure speculation on your part." Yes it is speculation, based on what the victims have publicly stated. Both points make it more difficult for the prosecution to get a conviction, again that isn't "picking" on the witnesses, it is evaluating their motive and veracity.

You seem to have missed the point of my posts that is; the legal issues with obtaining a conviction of Patton under S. 474.17 of the criminal code. Not sure how I can do that without "being defensive of Patton". Please have another read and tell me where I have said he was justified or right to do what he is accused of.

Again you retreat into a discussion of legalities when those are not the subject of my posts.

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.

So why is it that you completely ignore any reasonable explanation for why three women who know each other would come forward? You go straight to attention-seeking and then make a leap to conspiracy.

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.

Again you cite the fact that the fact that the women knew each other was the cause of your suspicion.

One of the other reasons I might be unreasonable in my assessment of the Patton incident is that the witnesses did not initially go to the police instead they destroyed Pattons reputation (maybe deservedly so), in retrospect that might have actually been the best thing they could have done for themselves and it does highlight the failings in the legal system when it comes to sex offences. I have to admit though, it really rubs me the wrong way and encourages vigilantism. Justice may have already been served but Patton has not had his day in court and hasn't had the opportunity to face his accusers. I really do hope he did the things he is accused of, because if he is innocent...

My guess is going public is your primary point of concern here. You claim you haven't made a value judgment about this but it is hard to read what you are writing without seeing a value judgement being made. I take no issue with you legal opinion. But you clearly have a concern with the three women that extends beyond legal interpretations and it is showing in what you have written. Makes it hard to discuss this when you retreat into a legal discussion.