News Welcome to Hawthorn Jon Patton : Retired

[mick]

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.

I have not, at any stage, been arguing anything other than why this instance is unlikely to taken to court, and your misleading claim that offending someone over a phone is an offense. If you can point out where I have strayed from this them, I would appreciate it.

It seems like you have taken some personal offence about being called out on your claim that it is an offence to offend someone using a carriage service. There is nothing to be embarrassed about, it doesn't make you an idiot, as I said the heading for that piece of legislation is misleading. Most people would probably read the heading and agree with you.

I am questioning the validity of the victim's claims, so should you, the court certainly would. It is what you are supposed to do. You can't just take a victims word for it, especially when it has had such a massive impact on the accused.

I was proposing possible reasons how the victims could have possibly known each other - prior to there being dick pics sent, I mean it is odd. One of those reasons is a conspiracy -I don't think that is likely, maybe I should have made that clearer. It wasn't my intent to besmirch the accusers I was pointing out what would happen should they testify and why do not particularly make good witness from the prosecution point of view. I don't think they have done anything wrong, and as I said, I believe they think they are telling the truth.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I have not, at any stage, been arguing anything other than why this instance is unlikely to taken to court, and your misleading claim that offending someone over a phone is an offense. If you can point out where I have strayed from this them, I would appreciate it.

It seems like you have taken some personal offence about being called out on your claim that it is an offence to offend someone using a carriage service. There is nothing to be embarrassed about, it doesn't make you an idiot, as I said the heading for that piece of legislation is misleading. Most people would probably read the heading and agree with you.

For the third time, this is no longer anything to do with the argument of charges, nor is it about personal offense. It’s regarding your continued fabrication of what if scenario’s to lessen the guilt that Patton is facing.

I am questioning the validity of the victim's claims, so should you, the court certainly would. It is what you are supposed to do. You can't just take a victims word for it, especially when it has had such a massive impact on the accused.

I was proposing possible reasons how the victims could have possibly known each other - prior to there being dick pics sent, I mean it is odd. One of those reasons is a conspiracy -I don't think that is likely, maybe I should have made that clearer. It wasn't my intent to besmirch the accusers I was pointing out what would happen should they testify and why do not particularly make good witness from the prosecution point of view. I don't think they have done anything wrong, and as I said, I believe they think they are telling the truth.

If your intent is to not besmirch the girls who have come forward, maybe you could spend less time trying to compartmentalise their backgrounds or knowledge of each other, and think more about what causes an AFL player to message a girl consistently over a period of years who is not showing any interest in responding.

 

[mick]

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


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.


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

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.

Yes, I think that the women knowing each other prior to the dick pick sending was unusual, this is what gave me a little bit of doubt into Patton's absolute guilt -I didn't suggest this was "reasonable doubt" in a legal sense, it is just what made stop putting petrol on the bonfire that everyone was building around Patton. There may very well be a logical and entirely acceptable reason for it, one poster suggested they all knew each other being "influencers", that may well be the case, but with only a hundred or so Twitter followers and no public instagram I didn't see how this was possible, but I don't know how this "Influencer" stuff works so I didn't want to comment. I didn't say they were attention-seeking or that there was a conspiracy to destroy Patton, I said it was a possibility, and while it is very unlikely it is more likely than Patton randomly sending it to 3 strangers who knew each other. Do you get my point - the victims are probably telling the truth as they see it, but if the defense wanted to create doubt, it would not be difficult.

My primary point of concern, is entirely the unlikelihood of Patton being convicted of an offense under the criminal code, and that it is not an offense to offend someone over the phone. That's it, that is what I am arguing. If you are reading something else into what I am writing or identifying some subtext that I am blaming the victims or saying that they deserve what Patton did - then you have missed my intended point completely.
Let me repost what I said, in case you missed it

1. 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)

Read the comments I have made about the victims in relation to how they would appear on the stand under cross, that was my intent. I do not believe that three women have decided to get together and make up a story to ruin Patton's career, that is ridiculous. The victims do have inconsistencies in their public statements, this does not make them liars. they could have been misreported, they could have been mistaken about when Patton sent pics. There is any number of legitimate reasons to explain why one of them continued to have a conversation with Patton long after he became offensive, but it is just not something you want appearing during testimony as a prosecutor.

 

[mick]

For the third time, this is no longer anything to do with the argument of charges, nor is it about personal offense. It’s regarding your continued fabrication of what if scenario’s to lessen the guilt that Patton is facing.

That just doesn't make sense. It has everything to do with the argument of the charges, that is all I am writing about, I should know, I am writing it. That is why I am presenting (fabricating?) scenarios that indicate why Patton would not be charged. If you want him charged, good for you, he probably deserves it as I have said. I just think " probably" isn't a high enough burden of proof to totally stuff someone's life up and certainly not enough to get a conviction in court. I have not once said Patton is innocent of anything, so I don't understand your defensiveness.

Brant was right, we are at cross purposes, you might think I am saying Patton is "Innocent", and the victims character is in question. I am not, all I am saying is that I do not think he will be charged, and that you are mistaken in your application of the legislation you cited.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

That just doesn't make sense. It has everything to do with the argument of the charges, that is all I am writing about, I should know, I am writing it. That is why I am presenting (fabricating?) scenarios that indicate why Patton would not be charged. If you want him charged, good for you, he probably deserves it as I have said. I just think " probably" isn't a high enough burden of proof to totally stuff someone's life up and certainly not enough to get a conviction in court. I have not once said Patton is innocent of anything, so I don't understand your defensiveness.

Brant was right, we are at cross purposes, you might think I am saying Patton is "Innocent", and the victims character is in question. I am not, all I am saying is that I do not think he will be charged, and that you are mistaken in your application of the legislation you cited.

Maybe I am not making myself clear.

This conversation we are having is not about charges. I am not arguing he should be charged. We moved on from this pages ago.

Most of the responses to your walls of text are regarding the wriggle room you’re continually suggesting that Patton should be given, while raising questions over the veracity of claims by the complainants and their connection.

IMO, you’re not coming across as a balanced observer providing insight on any legal ramifications but merely a biased Hawthorn fan, completely out of step with today’s amount of social media networking, indirectly or perhaps even knowingly looking to make excuses for Patton’s situation...andI think you need to let it go.

 

[mick]

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.

Quite right, you make it sound sinister. I do not think it is all as it seems, that is a personal opinion based on experience with the media and how this sort of stuff tends to be reported, I think the reporting has been very one-sided and there is a lot of bullshit being sprouted (Patton banging Scully's sister???). At the risk of repeating myself, I think Patton has committed sexual misconduct.

Everyone should consider the validity of the victims claims, if you have already done this and decided they are unimpeachable, good for you, that is your opinion, I'm not sure why I should be compelled by your opinion though, you've shown yourself to be fallible in this sort of thing.

I did question their relationship with each other, I thought it was odd - a little suspicious, but I really do not know how this social networking thing works with Twitter, only fans and Instagram, so maybe it isn't suspicious to someone who is on top of this stuff.

I did not suggest that a "conspiracy" was likely, I said it was a possibility, along with the possibility that Patton sends nude pix to thousands of victims. You are not reading my posts in context, then getting all huffy implying I am victim blaming.

Take a pill dude, admit that you misunderstood the legislation and we can all move on.

 

[mick]

Maybe I am not making myself clear.

Agreed

This conversation we are having is not about charges. I am not arguing he should be charged. We moved on from this pages ago.

We did not, you may have but you didn't acknowledge this so how the hell was I supposed to know?

IMO, you’re not coming across as a balanced observer providing insight on any legal ramifications but merely a biased Hawthorn fan, completely out of step with today’s amount of social media networking, indirectly or perhaps even knowingly looking to make excuses for Patton’s situation...andI think you need to let it go.

The first part is absolutely spot on, I am a biased Hawthorn fan completely out of step with today's amount of social media networking. Got me in one. The last part is right too, I need to let it go

 

[Stratton24]

The story goes that the female is desperate to become a “wag” and was very happy to engage in a consensual relationship. Patton didn’t want a long term thing so when he broke it off she didn’t take it well. She then got several of her friends to place a trap which Patton was stupid enough to fall for. It is not a coincidence that Patton randomly did this to several woman who just happened to be friends. I still think Patton needs to be sacked for his behaviour but it definitely was not him just harassing randoms.

 

[mick]

The story goes that the female is desperate to become a “wag” and was very happy to engage in a consensual relationship. Patton didn’t want a long term thing so when he broke it off she didn’t take it well. She then got several of her friends to place a trap which Patton was stupid enough to fall for. It is not a coincidence that Patton randomly did this to several woman who just happened to be friends. I still think Patton needs to be sacked for his behaviour but it definitely was not him just harassing randoms.

Nah, sorry, I can't have this. Who is going to wait 6 months after successfully baiting him to spring the trap? Doesn't make sense to me. I take it this information is not from the media?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

The story goes that the female is desperate to become a “wag” and was very happy to engage in a consensual relationship. Patton didn’t want a long term thing so when he broke it off she didn’t take it well. She then got several of her friends to place a trap which Patton was stupid enough to fall for. It is not a coincidence that Patton randomly did this to several woman who just happened to be friends. I still think Patton needs to be sacked for his behaviour but it definitely was not him just harassing randoms.

So we just ignore the years of him hitting up randoms, and pretend like it was just these 3 girls?

 

[mick]

So we just ignore the years of him hitting up randoms, and pretend like it was just these 3 girls?

Can you show me where you have heard he has been hitting up "randoms" for years? I can't find much on that at all other than gossip.

 

[rei154]

The story goes that the female is desperate to become a “wag” and was very happy to engage in a consensual relationship. Patton didn’t want a long term thing so when he broke it off she didn’t take it well. She then got several of her friends to place a trap which Patton was stupid enough to fall for. It is not a coincidence that Patton randomly did this to several woman who just happened to be friends. I still think Patton needs to be sacked for his behaviour but it definitely was not him just harassing randoms.

This is an unreal reach. Completely ignores the patterns of behaviour he has shown and completely down-plays the severity of the situation. I reckon that interpretation of events is on par with him assaulting Scully lmao

Can you show me where you have heard he has been hitting up "randoms" for years? I can't find much on that at all other than gossip.

Other than chatlogs that have been making the rounds/people who have known the dude for ages coming out and corroborating the stories of him being a serial pest you're not going to get much evidence.
You'd be bloody hard pressed to find any information that is definitive in this situation.

 

[killerspud]

That just doesn't make sense. It has everything to do with the argument of the charges, that is all I am writing about, I should know, I am writing it. That is why I am presenting (fabricating?) scenarios that indicate why Patton would not be charged. If you want him charged, good for you, he probably deserves it as I have said. I just think " probably" isn't a high enough burden of proof to totally stuff someone's life up and certainly not enough to get a conviction in court. I have not once said Patton is innocent of anything, so I don't understand your defensiveness.

Brant was right, we are at cross purposes, you might think I am saying Patton is "Innocent", and the victims character is in question. I am not, all I am saying is that I do not think he will be charged, and that you are mistaken in your application of the legislation you cited.

Whatever you say miQ

 

[Stratton24]

Nah, sorry, I can't have this. Who is going to wait 6 months after successfully baiting him to spring the trap? Doesn't make sense to me. I take it this information is not from the media?

From someone that knows the female. Has tried several times to hook an AFL player.

 

[rei154]

My primary point of concern, is entirely the unlikelihood of Patton being convicted of an offense under the criminal code, and that it is not an offense to offend someone over the phone. That's it, that is what I am arguing. If you are reading something else into what I am writing or identifying some subtext that I am blaming the victims or saying that they deserve what Patton did - then you have missed my intended point completely.
Let me repost what I said, in case you missed it

The problem is we aren't just talking about offending someone, we're talking about sexual harassment. The distinction is massive- iirc someone earlier explained how the laws have changed and now dick picks and the like are considered the same as flashing someone in public. He didn't just call them a dickhead or something, he sent unsolicited pictures, and when they called him a creep and a perv for it he started harassing them.

The stuff that you've written has at times offended my sensibilities, do I think you should cop some kind of official sanctioning/ramifications? No. If you sent me a picture of your Johnston, then insulted me when I said I didn't want to see it, then I'd want you to cop it.

The problem with what you've said at times is that you're looking at legal semantics to justify downplaying/mitigating the experiences of the victims who have come forward (this may not be your intent, but have a read at peoples response and realise that this is how you're coming across). The victims knowing eachother shouldn't have any bearing on anything, each chatlog between JP and each individual female is an issue and is problematic, the fact that they had to support eachother to feel safe to come forward on this is indicative of a system set up to allow perpetrators to have the benefit of the doubt and get away with grey area stuff.

 

[threesixpio]

I think you are assuming I have the same dismissive attitude towards sexual assault and domestic violence that I do towards someone being sent a dick pic.
That could not be further from the case.

As far as 'benchmark for society' goes Im afraid that you are incorrect.
The law often uses the term 'a reasonable person' as the benchmark for what is acceptable.

I cannot think of a more reasonable person than myself.





Although the circumstances might be different the act of sending the pics is exactly the same.

Now I know why I avoided this thread. The last paragraph is horribly stupid and eats itself

 

[mick]

This is an unreal reach. Completely ignores the patterns of behaviour he has shown and completely down-plays the severity of the situation. I reckon that interpretation of events is on par with him assaulting Scully lmao



Other than chatlogs that have been making the rounds/people who have known the dude for ages coming out and corroborating the stories of him being a serial pest you're not going to get much evidence.
You'd be bloody hard pressed to find any information that is definitive in this situation.

Ok, so it is not some Weinstein type scenario where all these victims are coming out saying it was him. Its some people who know him saying he has a history of sending dick picks, would that be right? Or by pest do you mean stalking/harassment type behaviour? Sorry, I haven't seen any of these chatlogs, if they are posted by people who knew him that's pretty damning.

 

[threesixpio]

Have posted as much elsewhere recently but you don’t have to be Einstein to read between the lines in regards to his hospitalization, the media silence and the comments from Clarkson this morning. It all points to Patton being in a pretty dark space as a consequence of his actions being uncovered.


From SEN:
Jon Patton remains stood down by the Hawks for allegedly sending unsolicited lewd images to women through dating apps.

He was admitted to hospital during the saga as the public scrutiny increased.

Clarkson said the club will stick by the key forward as the investigation into the incidents unfolds.

“(His future,) that’ll be determined by the result of the investigation. All we would say is these situations from time to time pop up and when there’s an investigation that takes place, we just let that unfold,” the four-time premiership coach said.

“In the meantime, because these are young men and because of AFL football, they’re sheltered from the real world, and what they have to endure as young men, they’re not equipped with the coping strategies and that’s been the case with Patton, who’s found himself on the front page of the paper.

“Now the investigation will determine right or wrong, but the scrutiny that some of these footballers are under, he’s found himself in a space where he just needed some time away to reflect.

Don’t have to be Einstein hey?

 

[William Wonka]

Now I know why I avoided this thread. The last paragraph is horribly stupid and eats itself

Please explain to me the difference then?
I'll wait.

Remember I was talking about legality.

If using a carriage service to send someone a picture of a blokes **** is a crime then everyone who shared the Barry Wood meme is a guilty as Patton, as is everyone who shared the screenshots of Jon.

 

[mick]

The problem is we aren't just talking about offending someone, we're talking about sexual harassment. The distinction is massive

Please don't take my posts out of context. I am not downplaying what Patton has been accused of at all. There has been some errant interpretation of the legislation on this thread, and I stupidly tried to correct one.

" 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 was a patently wrong interpretation of the heading of the relevant section. This is what I was referring to when saying it not an offense if someone "feels" like they have been offended." I wasn't saying that Patton didn't offend someone, or try to downplay the seriousness of his actions. Just because someone felt offended/harrassed because of a message is not even close to getting all the elements of the offence.

iirc someone earlier explained how the laws have changed and now dick picks and the like are considered the same as flashing someone in public.

That "someone" who said it was the same as flashing is wrong. It was complete bullshit. It was the same numpty who said that his work provided the police with lots of data about Patton and there were lots of victims - ffs even if that were true what sort of cretin would put his employer at risk like that? If that was my work and I had made public that sort of confidential information, I could be jailed.

I can show you the legislation or you can search it yourself. In any case, Flashing can be even harder to prove than what Patton is being accused of - you have to do it in public, then that becomes its own argument. Then, to be aggravated you need to flash with malicious intent - If you were just taking a piss by the road - that is indecent exposure, but it isn't aggravated. If the fan blows the curtain revealing to passerbys that are having a toss by the window - you have half a chance of getting off.

I think you are spot on, there is an issue with how my posts are being interpreted, but for the life of me I can't see how else to explain that on the evidence I have seen Patton has little to fear from a legal standpoint - in my opinion. There may be a Insta message out there with Patton Sending a dick pic to someone after they have told him to stop, if there is- there is a better chance of Patton being convicted. I haven't seen anything like that on the three chatlogs I have seen.

I'm not having a crack at the victims, I am saying their current accounts and circumstances are not ideal from the prosecutors perspective, that's not their fault, but it is something the court will consider. If I have given anyone the impression that any of Patton's victims are to blame for this situation then that was not my intent. I think there is a possibility that Patton isn't as bad as he looks atm, but we don't know because we have not heard his side of the story other than for him to say he did not send unsolicited lewd messages.

 

[mick]

Please explain to me the difference then?
I'll wait.

Remember I was talking about legality.

If using a carriage service to send someone a picture of a blokes **** is a crime then everyone who shared the Barry Wood meme is a guilty as Patton, as is everyone who shared the screenshots of Jon.

This is the guts of what I have been trying unsuccessfully to explain.

It is not necessarily a crime to send a picture of a ****, It is a crime if that image or text would be deemed to be harassment (Ongoing, multiple pics and messages to one person) It is not harassment if you send 30 texts to 30 different people. If you sent a Barry wood meme to your mother -in law 60 times after she asked you to stop - that is harrassment.

It may be a crime if the offender sent the picture to someone he knows would be offended, and the picture is not acceptable by community standards. For instance, If I sent my ex wife a picture of a cat that has been tortured, that could be an offense. If I sent the same picture to a vet - that might be ok. In Pattons case, he may have formed the opinion that a nude model would not be offended by his pic (I know this sounds like victim blaming to some, but it goes to consent, Pattons state of mind and what can be considered offensive)

It is a crime to send a text or picture that is menacing. That means threatening to do so something if the person doesn't comply with your wishes. Unfortunately the threat has to be believable and realistic. For instance, if my ex lives in Darwin and says she is going to come over and kill my dog if I don't pay more child support. It is only an offence if I believe her, as she lives a long way away in Darwin the court would think this threat is unbelievable. So as long as my ex does not continue to make threats (harrassment) then she can't be charged.

 

[Gralin]

This is the guts of what I have been trying unsuccessfully to explain.

It is not necessarily a crime to send a picture of a ****, It is a crime if that image or text would be deemed to be harassment (Ongoing, multiple pics and messages to one person) It is not harassment if you send 30 texts to 30 different people. If you sent a Barry wood meme to your mother -in law 60 times after she asked you to stop - that is harrassment.

It may be a crime if the offender sent the picture to someone he knows would be offended, and the picture is not acceptable by community standards. For instance, If I sent my ex wife a picture of a cat that has been tortured, that could be an offense. If I sent the same picture to a vet - that might be ok. In Pattons case, he may have formed the opinion that a nude model would not be offended by his pic (I know this sounds like victim blaming to some, but it goes to consent, Pattons state of mind and what can be considered offensive)

It is a crime to send a text or picture that is menacing. That means threatening to do so something if the person doesn't comply with your wishes. Unfortunately the threat has to be believable and realistic. For instance, if my ex lives in Darwin and says she is going to come over and kill my dog if I don't pay more child support. It is only an offence if I believe her, as she lives a long way away in Darwin the court would think this threat is unbelievable. So as long as my ex does not continue to make threats (harrassment) then she can't be charged.

How did Patton deciding it's ok go to consent?

 

[mick]

How did Patton deciding it's ok go to consent?

That is one of the problems with the legislation, Patton does not have to prove he had consent. All the defense has to do is provide a reasonable explanation as to why Patton thought consent was given (implied consent). It does seem really unfair, but it has to do with Mens Rea - guilty mind.

You sounded like you were familiar with the Mclachlan case. I thought that had legs, I really thought Mclachlan would get convicted for that. Really good witnesses, the victims were brilliant in their evidence and thoroughly believable, consistent and corroborating without it appearing colluded. To try and justify the acquittal is difficult. But essentially, what I learned from it was disappointing. If the offender has a believable reason to assume he has consent, then he hasn't committed an offence. Likewise if Pattons defence can convince the magistrate that "Patton" thought it would not be offensive to send dick pics to women due to their job or his intimacy with them or some other bullshit reason - then he will get off. The prosecution has it much harder, they almost have to prove that Patton thought he was doing the wrong thing and sent pics knowing they would offend.

 

[threesixpio]

Please explain to me the difference then?
I'll wait.

Remember I was talking about legality.

If using a carriage service to send someone a picture of a blokes **** is a crime then everyone who shared the Barry Wood meme is a guilty as Patton, as is everyone who shared the screenshots of Jon.

Your dumb paragraph answers it - context. Think before you post. Layperson

 

[threesixpio]

The law ALWAYS applies to facts

Facts always exist within context

The law is not some stale and ahistorical form of governance which infinitely relativises all sets of circumstances

Thickie