News Welcome to Hawthorn Jon Patton : Retired

[Brishawk]

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.

Again, you try and deflect through an appeal to legalities when it is clear your personal judgements are what I and others have raised with you. You can explain legalities without putting forward ridiculous conspiracy theories. It may turn out there is some malicious intent from one or more of these three women but there is no evidence of such at this point. You haven't used such an example once. You keep repeating it. You have entertained unfounded speculation and suggest across multiple posts this could be attention-seeking, or a conspiracy or a school-girl vendetta etc. You seem to think claiming these are only possibilities exempts you from being judged as presenting your own personal opinion of these women. It doesn't.

I could claim it's possible that the British were responsible for all Patton's actions. Can you say they weren't? I'm only raising it as a possibility but if the British did control Patton that would mean he couldn't be found guilty. I'm not saying it was the British but I think it is more likely than these women telling the truth as they knew each other before hand and that is only likely if the British were involved. I think before we throw the book at Patton we need to be sure it wasn't the British who controlled him.

I never outright said it was the British but the comments you make about the women are of the same form.

• "The victims have done NOTHING wrong, unless the British have misrepresented what Patton has done."
• "The victims have done NOTHING wrong, unless they have misrepresented what Patton has done."

It is pretty clear to everyone reading this thread that you have an opinion on these women.

"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."

You are choosing to use language like 'schoolgirl payback'.

 

[The Spirit of Cricket]

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

sober and doubling-down on this take

 

[TylerDurden]

 

[tommyk72]

Hope he has more of an impact than Patton!

 

[mick]

Again, you try and deflect through an appeal to legalities when it is clear your personal judgements are what I and others have raised with you. You can explain legalities without putting forward ridiculous conspiracy theories. It may turn out there is some malicious intent from one or more of these three women but there is no evidence of such at this point. You haven't used such an example once. You keep repeating it. You have entertained unfounded speculation and suggest across multiple posts this could be attention-seeking, or a conspiracy or a school-girl vendetta etc. You seem to think claiming these are only possibilities exempts you from being judged as presenting your own personal opinion of these women. It doesn't.

I could claim it's possible that the British were responsible for all Patton's actions. Can you say they weren't? I'm only raising it as a possibility but if the British did control Patton that would mean he couldn't be found guilty. I'm not saying it was the British but I think it is more likely than these women telling the truth as they knew each other before hand and that is only likely if the British were involved. I think before we throw the book at Patton we need to be sure it wasn't the British who controlled him.

I never outright said it was the British but the comments you make about the women are of the same form.

• "The victims have done NOTHING wrong, unless the British have misrepresented what Patton has done."
• "The victims have done NOTHING wrong, unless they have misrepresented what Patton has done."

It is pretty clear to everyone reading this thread that you have an opinion on these women.

"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."

You are choosing to use language like 'schoolgirl payback'.

My school girl payback remark was sexist, I thought it was a commonly held assumption that schoolboys are more direct with their altercations and cruelty while school girls were more adept at creating social outcasts of their victims and better at character assassination, internet bullying -that sort of thing. I know it is sexist, but thought phrases like schoolboy tom-foolery and school girl threats were accepted forms of stereotyping. Apologies to anyone I have offended.

Of course I have an opinion on these women. But I was trying hard not to downplay the effects Pattons actions had on them, I don't actually have any idea how badly this affected them but I wasn't impressed with their interview.

If you wanted me to be more forthright - From reading Ella Coonan's own account I believe she was more adversely affected by the ramifications of her complaining about Patton than by Patton's texts, at least that is what I feel she expresses in her interview. Same with Kearnan, who said it made her feel "uncomfortable" - Uncomfortable is a pair of high heels, Getting sent nude pics or having someone face time you having a wank is disgusting, revolting, sickening, repulsive - not in Kearnan's words - uncomfortable. I didn't want to say I found their accounts were underwhelming, but that is an issue I have with it. They don't seem to be actually offended by it, not that that is my decision to make, just an opinion- which could be very wrong.

Which is in part why I wrote: 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

Note, this doesn't apply to Maggie Carters instagram which was a cracker, she just bitchslapped ( is bitchslap sexist?) Patton, she actually made Patton look like the victim, got her revenge for being treated badly, and showed everyone what a douche Patton is.

 

[Hawk Hawkins]

How you guys going with changing each others minds on the internet? Maybe you can all team up and pop over the to Essendon board to try and get them to change their minds about which team to support when you’re done here.

 

[Hawk Hawkins]

This entire thread...TL;DR don’t send people pictures of your doodle, no one wants to see it. Debate on the severity of the punishment.

 

[William Wonka]

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

I never requested Barry Wood pics.
I did not wish to receive them.
I rarely found them amusing.

I was even sent one where he was shooped on to George Floyds head in response to a political debate I was having- I found this offensive in the extreme

You cant claim to know the context surrounding every Barry Wood pic sent.

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

Up to a point.

If I punch you in the face in a boxing ring thats different than if I punch you in a pub.

I doubt that a judge would see much nuance in sending soft pr0n online.

 

[Tiger71]

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.

All good Mick. I get your passion in defending one of your own but what I have stated is all public record. I just wanted to correct the first poster i responded to saying the ACT can not be used for SMS type harassments etc. You are also focusing on one public incident, there is more, a lot more in fact. That is not me spilling the beans, its well known he has behaving this way for years and I doubt he has been just texting this one lady in all that time.

As to information past on to the authorities, that also is common knowledge in the telco space, again i am not braking any rules by posting such. Nothing I have posted is with the intent to lie to any on here and will happily answer any "legal threat" as its 100% factual and can be easily shown to be such.

Personally, though I think Patton's behavior is disgusting and if proved guilty should be punished accordingly, in no way do I wish him any personal harm or punishment that goes beyond the rule of law. I also want and hope he learns lessons from this and moves on with his life and once he has paid his dues, lives a long and happy life.

Again and i want to stress this, you are right about rumors, god knows as a tiger supporter and the Chopstick gate, how pathetic and harmful those rumors can be but make no mistake, John has been behaving this way for years and it was common knowledge at his time in Sydney. Lastly, I highly doubt you will get the victims talking publicly about this due to Jon being a celebrity and having a fan base wanting to defend him. So please dont excuse the lack of public noise by them as an sort of acceptance.


Note - If any mods would like me to stop posting, please let me know. In no way do i want to come of trolling or arguing with your fellows. Just when subjects like this come up its above footy and we are a community as well, so hence i posted what I have to date.

 

[HODGEYROAD]

been away all weekend, has Patton been sacked yet ?

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

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.

No, I’m not silly enough to post those screenshots on a public board.

 

[sydney_gws]

What will happen to patton. I hope he gets another chance, maybe doesn't deserve it. He hasn't assaulted anybody at least

 

[Ned Ryerson]

What will happen to patton. I hope he gets another chance, maybe doesn't deserve it. He hasn't assaulted anybody at least

This is what happens when western Sydney has so many days at near 50° temperatures.

 

[sydney_gws]

This is what happens when western Sydney has so many days at near 50° temperatures.

I mean beaten up, i wouldn't do what he did myself, not condone it. I feel sorry for him given his knee injuries. If the ladies feel a crime has been committed, they should report to police.

 

[Ned Ryerson]

I mean beaten up, i wouldn't do what he did myself, not condone it. I feel sorry for him given his knee injuries. If the ladies feel a crime has been committed, they should report to police.

So if someone flashed his dick at your mum at the train station you’d feel sorry for the dude so long as he’d done a couple of ACLs? Real smooth brain in action here.

 

[Nugett]

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.

from reading your posts, my understanding of what you are trying to say is that despite that Patton could be guilty Of sending offending pictures, there would be shades of grey in the legislation that he could be charged with, which means it could be unlikely that he gets charged with a criminal offence. as it’s just not Patton’s actions that are going to be questioned but his accusers as well. which to me makes sense as the law is never black and white as people would like to think.

Also by reading your posts, on a moral basis, you disagree with what Patton has done, as I’m sure a vast majority on here including myself can agree with. Unfortunately moral beliefs won’t stack up in a court of law.

 

[tommyk72]

This entire thread...TL;DR don’t send people pictures of your doodle, no one wants to see it. Debate on the severity of the punishment, or at least on the severity of what will occur vs what should occur.

EFA

 

[The Kipster]

This thread is shite...


Sent from my iPhone using BigFooty.com

 

[mick]

No, I’m not silly enough to post those screenshots on a public board.

I don't understand, what is silly about posting those screen shots on a public board? I guess if you received it if privately, in confidence then you have some obligation not to reveal the person who told you, but I can't think of any other reason outside of breaking the privacy Act. My issue is, that you trust the source enough to say, without equivocation, that Patton has been doing it for years and there are far more people than the 3 victims that have been brave enough to go public, then you have far better sources than I do (that wouldn't be hard tbh). It is a very strong accusation to make without having a lot of confidence in your sources, which is why I asked if you could share them. It would make me far more comfortable in condemning Patton, and would change my mind completely on whether he could be charged with an indictable offence. A long, sustained history of sending unsolicited dic pics, having received prior warnings not do so would make Pattons behaviour even more inexcusable and certainly actionable by law.

We have heard a claim, allegedly from someone who knows the person, that Patton has been "set -up". With no supporting evidence at all - how much weight should I put into that claim? Bugger all, would be my evaluation. So - do you see why I question whether Patton has been doing it for years. He may well have, people who claim to know his former teammates allegedly say he did it all the time, but again I haven't seen any evidence of this. I do not doubt for 1 minute, that Patton has been sending dic pics for years, whether this has been nonconsensual or legally "offensive" is where I have some doubt.

 

[mick]

Again and i want to stress this, you are right about rumors, god knows as a tiger supporter and the Chopstick gate, how pathetic and harmful those rumors can be but make no mistake, John has been behaving this way for years and it was common knowledge at his time in Sydney. .

Bugger me, essentially you just said "Rumours are really bad and harmful, don't listen to them (they aren't true about Dusty) - but Patton has been doing this shit for years" WTF??? Look, you might just be an idiot who doesn't know any better and not be a malevolent, trouble making troll, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and just treat you like a moron. I have no issue with you posting on a Hawthorn site, we don't have enough morons, I'm too scared to go on the Richmond site, last time I was there they were fully stocked, its only fair to spread the IQ around more evenly.

All good Mick. I get your passion in defending one of your own but what I have stated is all public record.

No, I have not been defending PAtton. WHat he did was wrong - I've said so numerous times.

What you said " It is treated exactly the same if it was done in person. So if i send you a picture of my junk, without your permission, it will be treated the same as if I had walked up and flashed you. harsher penalties apply if you repeat the act, after being told no."
Is not public record, in fact it is quite wrong. The two are completely different penalties, different sections and different Act, requiring different elements. You are not even close. ( I did have the two sections side by side and compared the two - but I lost my post and can't be shagged re doing it)

As to information past on to the authorities, that also is common knowledge in the telco space, again i am not braking any rules by posting such. Nothing I have posted is with the intent to lie to any on here and will happily answer any "legal threat" as its 100% factual and can be easily shown to be such.

Again, complete Bullshit.

By "Telco space"Are you suggesting that Telstra are aware of warrants or requests for information that the Police might have requested from Vodaphone? I call bullshit.

The offences you have breached by publicly posting that Pattons accounts are under Police request, include breaches of the Privacy Act,Telecommunications Act 1997, and there is a Victorian Act on Data privacy (I can't remember the name).

If you have done nothing wrong, try telling your boss, what you publicly posted re Patton being investigated by the police. No, just kidding, don't do that, the last thing we need is a Richmond a fan on the dole with more time to post.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I don't understand, what is silly about posting those screen shots on a public board? I guess if you received it if privately, in confidence then you have some obligation not to reveal the person who told you, but I can't think of any other reason outside of breaking the privacy Act. My issue is, that you trust the source enough to say, without equivocation, that Patton has been doing it for years and there are far more people than the 3 victims that have been brave enough to go public, then you have far better sources than I do (that wouldn't be hard tbh). It is a very strong accusation to make without having a lot of confidence in your sources, which is why I asked if you could share them. It would make me far more comfortable in condemning Patton, and would change my mind completely on whether he could be charged with an indictable offence. A long, sustained history of sending unsolicited dic pics, having received prior warnings not do so would make Pattons behaviour even more inexcusable and certainly actionable by law.

We have heard a claim, allegedly from someone who knows the person, that Patton has been "set -up". With no supporting evidence at all - how much weight should I put into that claim? Bugger all, would be my evaluation. So - do you see why I question whether Patton has been doing it for years. He may well have, people who claim to know his former teammates allegedly say he did it all the time, but again I haven't seen any evidence of this. I do not doubt for 1 minute, that Patton has been sending dic pics for years, whether this has been nonconsensual or legally "offensive" is where I have some doubt.

I’m certain you said you don’t understand social media, that you haven’t got a grip on the amount of girls Patton has approached, that you don’t have good sources, and that you were going to let it go.

Follow through.

 

[mick]

I’m certain you said you don’t understand social media, that you haven’t got a grip on the amount of girls Patton has approached, that you don’t have good sources, and that you were going to let it go.

Follow through.

Stop misrepresenting me please

I said I should let this go (continued posting does seem to be pointless), not that I would.

My initial reason for even posting on this abortion of a thread was because you said "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. "

The highlighted bit is misinformation on a number of levels. What you wrote was very misleading. You haven't argued how your premise was justified and when questioned have not provided any information on why your sources should be considered reliable. My sources, regarding the validity of the highlighted statement by you are solid, I provided you the legislation and examples of how it has been applied in the past.

You were wrong in your interpretation of that legislation, that's ok, most people would assume how you interpreted it was fine, which is why I commented, to let people know that your claim " if someone feels offended they can press charges" was not correct. There is enough crap going on about this horrible instance, and you added to it.

Not once have you acknowledged that you were in error with this statement, and you continue to post rumours as fact without providing any context on the validity of your sources, Saying shit like No, I’m not silly enough to post those screenshots on a public board."" Without explaining why it is silly, even when asked. There might be a good reason why you don't want to post a screenshot of a group of people saying Patton has a history of this, but I'll be buggered if I can figure out what this reason would be.

You have posted demonstrable misinformation, claimed rumour as fact and yet have the temerity to imply I am victim basher and that I am defending Patton's actions, neither of which is my intent, and in the case of morally defending Patton's actions is actually completely against everything I have said. I am taking it personally, in my eyes you appear to be a hypocrite and I don't like being portrayed as supporting Patton's actions when nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Bloody hell, it’s pretty clear I don’t want nor care to get into the current or passed legalities of what you deem to be a chargeable offense in regards to harassment.

I haven’t posted misinformation, haven’t claimed rumor as fact, and sorry to say I don’t need to validate anything I post with you.

Your walls of text and endless search for excuses or meaning to what Patton is being investigated of doing are now boring me, and I don’t care to argue the point.

As for not posting the screenshots, we have asked posters both here and elsewhere not to do it, and so I won’t be doing it myself.

Every man and his dog can see Patton has been stood down for good reason, and that we’ll most likely never see him runout again, but sure, if you want to keep trying to find some wriggle room as to why its not what it seems, just do it without responding to me. Thanks.

 

[Milkshaker]

Call me a cynic but someone's looking to increase their profile on prime time news.

 

[Adebisi]