NRL Players and family members in hot water

Nashy said:
No one is victim blaming. It's not just a buzzword, it actually means something. They are not saying she put herself into this situation, they're not saying she could have done something different to avoid being raped.

They're discussing possible scenarios of things that may, or may not play a part in evidence. No different to what you are doing, but on the opposite side of the court room.
Click to expand...

Did you quote the right post? I have never said anything about anyone victim blaming. I too am discussing scenarios, amicably.
 
Porthoz said:
Mate, you don't have to apologise. Everyone's opinion is coloured by their life experiences, as we've recently seen in the Controversial thread.
I know someone who almost certainly committed a brutal murder against a close relative. Police are convinced of it too, and the circumstantial evidence is strong. Unfortunately, there isn't enough tangible evidence to convict him, even after an inquest, so he has walked free for over 20 years.

I mostly agree with your point here. Assuming her side is the truth, she's in a lose/lose position, where after being raped, she will possibly be torn apart in court and as B4L mentioned, see her character assassinated on top of everything. Hopefully there will be some reparation in long jail terms for her assaulters, but the mental scars will never go away.

However, her right to be believed, ends when it infringes on the right to freedom from someone she accuses of a very serious crime. People lie for all kinds of reasons, they just do, and it would be a slippery slope where not justice, but the best liars would be rewarded.

The FBI puts the amount of proven false accusations of rape at 8% 20 years ago, well before the [HASHTAG]#metoo[/HASHTAG] movement. This is not taking into account cases which were not prosecuted for lack of evidence!
The main reason for the accusations? "Emotional gain" of experimenting young women who feel regret and shame, especially when multiple partners were involved, and use those accusations as a mechanism to both feel better about themselves and avoid judgement of others.

Only recently, 2 men accused of gang raping a woman, were released and their sentence vacated in New York, because despite the lack of conclusive evidence, they believed her. 26 years later, DNA evidence and the woman's own admission that she lied, finally brought justice to them.

I realise that my stance will result in criminals going free, but I can live with that if it means no innocents are punished, even if the ratio was 1000 to 1.
Click to expand...
My friend I can’t live with that ratio. A thousand lives destroyed and 999 smug bastards who scammed the system for every victim who received justice.
 
From a lifetime of observation I can say that people embellish. People also tend to gloss over their part in an event while recollecting with stunning clarity every detail of the other party or parties involved. It's human nature as far as I can tell and it starts early in life. Kids do it naturally and it keeps going.

I didn't just say she is lying or that any of her statements are incorrect.

What I'm saying here is that people are unreliable when recalling an event. Anyone who has done any study on recollection will know this. As Hugh Lawrie's character House often said, people lie. Not knowingly too, not intentionally either at times but because human recollection is imperfect. Another thing is certain too, people tend to forget anything that compromises their narrative and that's why the court system has to adopt a skeptical approach. As a society we simply cannot accept an accusers word for things, it must be tested thoroughly.

Yes it hurts and if there was another way to ascertain the truth or even get close to it, I'd be all for it. Don't misunderstand, I feel for the lass and wish she didn't go through this experience but we must be certain her facts are just that, factually correct.
 
Sirlee oldman said:
My friend I can’t live with that ratio. A thousand lives destroyed and 999 smug bastards who scammed the system for every victim who received justice.
Click to expand...
I meant a ratio of 1000 smug bastards for 1 imprisoned (or worse, executed) innocent person.

I highly doubt that is the ratio of convicted vs free criminals.
 
Huge said:
From a lifetime of observation I can say that people embellish. People also tend to gloss over their part in an event while recollecting with stunning clarity every detail of the other party or parties involved. It's human nature as far as I can tell and it starts early in life. Kids do it naturally and it keeps going.

I didn't just say she is lying or that any of her statements are incorrect.

What I'm saying here is that people are unreliable when recalling an event. Anyone who has done any study on recollection will know this. As Hugh Lawrie's character House often said, people lie. Not knowingly too, not intentionally either at times but because human recollection is imperfect. Another thing is certain too, people tend to forget anything that compromises their narrative and that's why the court system has to adopt a skeptical approach. As a society we simply cannot accept an accusers word for things, it must be tested thoroughly.

Yes it hurts and if there was another way to ascertain the truth or even get close to it, I'd be all for it. Don't misunderstand, I feel for the lass and wish she didn't go through this experience but we must be certain her facts are just that, factually correct.
Click to expand...
Why do you have to be exposed to the facts rather than the court?

(Removed - Keep it civil and on topic)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sirlee oldman said:
Why do you have to be exposed to the facts rather than the court?
Click to expand...
Huh? Your anger at me personally has you seeing things! Where did I say I (me personally) have to be exposed to the facts rather than the courts?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Keep it amicable lads, it’s been good up until now, let’s not ruin it.
 
Sproj said:
Keep it amicable lads, it’s been good up until now, let’s not ruin it.
Click to expand...
I didn't start it Mum,he did he did he did ha ha. I thought my post before it was absolutely reasonable and gentle too.
 
Huge said:
From a lifetime of observation I can say that people embellish. People also tend to gloss over their part in an event while recollecting with stunning clarity every detail of the other party or parties involved. It's human nature as far as I can tell and it starts early in life. Kids do it naturally and it keeps going.

I didn't just say she is lying or that any of her statements are incorrect.

What I'm saying here is that people are unreliable when recalling an event. Anyone who has done any study on recollection will know this. As Hugh Lawrie's character House often said, people lie. Not knowingly too, not intentionally either at times but because human recollection is imperfect. Another thing is certain too, people tend to forget anything that compromises their narrative and that's why the court system has to adopt a skeptical approach. As a society we simply cannot accept an accusers word for things, it must be tested thoroughly.

Yes it hurts and if there was another way to ascertain the truth or even get close to it, I'd be all for it. Don't misunderstand, I feel for the lass and wish she didn't go through this experience but we must be certain her facts are just that, factually correct.
Click to expand...

Yes, agreed. Of course. No one would dispute that or is.

You can have you story strenuously tested and pulled about without character assassination and slut shaming that defenses will likely use.

Even with all that said it is just the way it is and people are entitled to the best defense possible, all I have said is that she is putting herself through one hell of an ordeal with little to gain if this didn’t happen.
 
Porthoz said:
Mate, you don't have to apologise. Everyone's opinion is coloured by their life experiences, as we've recently seen in the Controversial thread.
I know someone who almost certainly committed a brutal murder against a close relative. Police are convinced of it too, and the circumstantial evidence is strong. Unfortunately, there isn't enough tangible evidence to convict him, even after an inquest, so he has walked free for over 20 years.

I mostly agree with your point here. Assuming her side is the truth, she's in a lose/lose position, where after being raped, she will possibly be torn apart in court and as B4L mentioned, see her character assassinated on top of everything. Hopefully there will be some reparation in long jail terms for her assaulters, but the mental scars will never go away.

However, her right to be believed, ends when it infringes on the right to freedom from someone she accuses of a very serious crime. People lie for all kinds of reasons, they just do, and it would be a slippery slope where not justice, but the best liars would be rewarded.

The FBI puts the amount of proven false accusations of rape at 8% 20 years ago, well before the [HASHTAG]#metoo[/HASHTAG] movement. This is not taking into account cases which were not prosecuted for lack of evidence!
The main reason for the accusations? "Emotional gain" of experimenting young women who feel regret and shame, especially when multiple partners were involved, and use those accusations as a mechanism to both feel better about themselves and avoid judgement of others.

Only recently, 2 men accused of gang raping a woman, were released and their sentence vacated in New York, because despite the lack of conclusive evidence, they believed her. 26 years later, DNA evidence and the woman's own admission that she lied, finally brought justice to them.

I realise that my stance will result in criminals going free, but I can live with that if it means no innocents are punished, even if the ratio was 1000 to 1.
Click to expand...

Needs more likes :)
 
broncos4life said:
Yes, agreed. Of course. No one would dispute that or is.

You can have you story strenuously tested and pulled about without character assassination and slut shaming that defenses will likely use.

Even with all that said it is just the way it is and people are entitled to the best defense possible, all I have said is that she is putting herself through one hell of an ordeal with little to gain if this didn’t happen.
Click to expand...
Yes, totally agree. I mean, why put herself through the wringer? She must have known what was coming as this scenario has been committed to film so many times before. As a society and for the accused the story must be tested thoroughly. I'm not thinking she deserved mistreatment or asked for it somehow. One things certain and that is the veracity of the claim will be strenuously tested.
 
Unbreakable said:
de Belin could be free to play a good chunk of the season after (allegedly) repeatedly raping a woman, yet Napa is apparently facing a suspension for having consensual sex. I don't really get it.
Click to expand...

Napa may be facing suspension because what he did is pretty obvious and not really in dispute. If the bellend had a mate film him rooting this chick and then shared it around in a whatsapp or wechat or whatever group and it got publicly leaked I would expect him to cop a suspension for that too. Especially given the off season we've had.

But my understanding is that pending a court's judgement the NRL would have trouble suspending him or standing him down, and doing so would apparently leave them open to being sued. A law talking guy what I know also suggested to me that public actions against JdB, such as suspension, while the matter is still before the courts might even be construed as implying he's guilty.
 
I've been reading Ken Arthurson's biography 'Arko: My Game' and he had some insights into player behaviour towards the end of the book. It was published in 1997 but some of these statements could easily have been made yesterday.

I thought I'd share a few quotes:

'More than ever, any time footballers play up off the field and get themselves into the headlines, it is an offence against the game they play. Too many people have drifted from the game already, to other sports, other interests. Sadly for some people, some dedicated fans have learned that there is life after football. They're going to be damned hard to get back. And the certainty is that mug behaviour from supposed sporting role models is only going to drive more away. If I have a final word to players it is this: if you want to keep playing rugby league, and earning good money from it, think hard about what you do away from the playing field...very hard.'

He goes on to write:

'I think the players of the game have to be especially concerned and careful. They are richer than they have ever been in rugby league's history. They are also more vulnerable than they've ever been. I sense a distinct resentment in the community at the vast and ridiculous payments being made to footballers (although that situation is certainly not their fault!), and that resentment has translated into a significant 'turn off' factor among people who once followed the game.

Blokes with a mortgage, not much money and a house full of kids, find little common ground anymore with BMW-driving, overpaid footballers, who are nudged along by managers chasing ever-bigger contracts. More than ever before the players have to care for their game - in everything they do, on and off the paddock.'
 
I like this from the NRL, IF they keep it up of course. Might attract som disillusioned fans back.

Still love the fact The Sharks have all these massive punishments and have shown systematic rotting attempts of the system and ‘self-reported’ to make themselves look good but the premiership season, nope we nailed that one. Yaha
 
New Posts

Unread

Back
Top