I hate the media!

[OXY-351]

IMO, if she didn't consent to it and actually verbally say "yes" then it's not much different to actually saying no.

Are you kidding? If you take that stance, you'd have hundreds of guys being charged with rape every day.

I suppose you walk around with a contract in your back pocket for the girls to sign before you take them home?

 

[OXY-351]

Exactly schmix. She went in with 3, did the deed then come out.

What does it matter how many she went in with? If she didn't consent to it (by verbally saying yes, according to your logic), then they have sexually assaulted her, just like the sharks players. Is it ok to sexually assault someone as long as it's only the original people there, or is it just ok for broncos players to do it cause it's the team you support?

 

[tryhard]

Seriously, you don't suffer the level of psychological trauma she has (diagnosed, completely indisputable) by waking up the next morning or leaving the room going "hmm, that wasn't as good as I thought it'd be".

I wish people would pay more attention to this. You don't get post traumatic stress disorder, or attempt suicide, or want people dead because you thought "woops". If I did something I felt guilty about then I'd be trying to keep it quiet, or at the very least I wouldn't go and talk about it on national tv.

This event was traumatic for her. Trauma doesn't occur when you're fully consensual in the act.

Very true

 

[schmix]

Yes there are similarities, but there are big differences. Without having the full story you have to make some assumptions. It makes sense to assume that going into a cubicle with three men means you're interested in having sex with them. It does not make sense to assume that going into a room with two men means you want to have sex with another 10. Whatever went wrong in that bathroom was, it seems, in the smaller details.

I don't know what you expected channel 9 to do? They have a business based solely on how many people watch their shows, and right now the public is not happy with johns. I, and most others, said i think he should keep his other, lower profile jobs.

 

[OXY-351]

Yes there are similarities, but there are big differences. Without having the full story you have to make some assumptions. It makes sense to assume that going into a cubicle with three men means you're interested in having sex with them. It does not make sense to assume that going into a room with two men means you want to have sex with another 10. Whatever went wrong in that bathroom was, it seems, in the smaller details.

I don't know what you expected channel 9 to do? They have a business based solely on how many people watch their shows, and right now the public is not happy with johns. I, and most others, said i think he should keep his other, lower profile jobs.

You're right. There are differences, but at the end of the day, most people only see that xyz was accused of sexual assault/involved in group sex. Most people fail to see through the spin the media put on it. To those average punters, someone like Boyd/Hunt/Thaiday brought the game in to just as much repute as Johns did/has.

Agreed on Channel 9, but how are they any different to the Broncos/NRL. They both run businesses based on "bums on seats", "eyes on the box" etc. The public wasn't too happy with the Broncos players back in November either, but I didn't see too many people on here calling for them to be sacked.

 

[Fozz]

Nein just had 20 minute interview with Johns on ACA. I wasn't really paying attention to it but I got really pissed off after the interview when Tracey Grimjaw said "If he is serious about being sorry then he should name the other players". Farrrkk me. Why should Johns have to name them? It's not his problem if they don't want to be identified, they didn't commit a crime even if it was morally dubious to have a gang bang on a 19 year old. Grimjaw and her hack mates are just looking for ratings here.

 

[rissi_gurl]

Also in Hunts/Thaidays case remember there was video evidence that was examined... and i think thats what the police would have based there claim on when they said they had no case to answer to and why no charges were laid

 

[Aeetee]

OK Johns just had his Interview on TV. And the 2 stories are very different, and I hate Matty Johns with a passion, so glad to see him off TV.

But I believed everything he said in his interview. I feel for the guy on one hand, but on the other glad hes gone.

 

[OXY-351]

they didn't commit a crime even if it was morally dubious to have a gang bang on a 19 year old.

That's the thing. There is nothing illegal about having consensual group sex. However, because the majority of the general public wouldn't engage in such praticies, they view it morally wrong do to so. So because the majority of the public take a dim view of it, Channel 9 have to sack Johns to appease the publics view.

In a lot of these cases, it's the woman that is made to be the victim. Again, I also firmly beleive that because the majority of the public wouldn't want to be shagged by 12 NRL players (Ian Roberts is an exception), they assume that no one would want to put themselves in a position like that.

If you beleive Johns, the woman did want it at the time. If that's the case, and she has subsequently developed issues because it wasn't what she expected, then that's her problem

Has anyone considered that it's perhaps Johns who is the victim here?

 

[broncosil]

It's he says, she says, except without the he says. We only have her point of view, and the last time I checked that isn't enough evidence to suggest something incriminating happened. If she was asked "is it okay if I join in", then why did she not say "no". A case of rape would suggest that the question wouldn't be asked to begin with.

I understand fear keeping someone silent, but they are not mind readers. If she complies physically but does not verbalise her intent, how the f*ck are they meant to know. Can any of you read your partners minds all the time, in any situation?

And just because she says something doesn't make it true. To make allegations means there should at least be an element of proof, and so far there is no concrete evidence that something illegal has happened.

On another note, a precedent has been set. The next player or official to do something stupid should face the sack.

 

[Nashy]

What did he say in the interview Tee?

 

[OXY-351]

What did he say in the interview Tee?

Not too much. Just said he's sorry for the pain and embarrasment it's caused everyone involved, but that she was a willing participant in all that went on that night. Even to the stage where she was asking guys to come forward and screw her.

 

[Flutterby]

He said that at no stage did she not consent and that she was on the bed calling players forward to have sex with her; even at one point saying to one of them "no not you, him" and then pointed to Johns. He reckons he declined (he had already had sex with her) and left the room; that he did come back into the room to check everything was OK and that the situation was all OK and everyone there was into it. He said he didn't think it was right to go into details, but basically she was well into it at the time. He also said he didn't know she was only 19 and if he'd known he wouldn't have taken her back to his room. So yeah it is a case of she said he said - the only people who really know the truth are the people that were there.

 

[Je$ter]

After watching that interview, even though Grimshaw tried to cut Johns to pieces his version of events seemed more believable. At the time she didn't care, it was only after the fact she felt stupid et al and decided to go to the cops.

He doesn't deserve to be sacked, hwoever someone in his role will always struggle to keep their job when 9 is only looking after it's ratings.

 

[Coxy]

As i keep fucking saying and people keep fucking ignoring, if she is this traumatised by the incident then she wasn't "all into it".

If anyone's opinion i trust it's her doctor/psychologist.

 

[OXY-351]

As i keep **** saying and people keep **** ignoring, if she is this traumatised by the incident then she wasn't "all into it".

If anyone's opinion i trust it's her doctor/psychologist.

You ever heard of post trauma?

Sure this event may have affected her, but it could have happened AFTER THE INCIDENT, in which case she would have not displayed it AT THE TIME

 

[Coxy]

Yes. Though if you're planning to use that as an argument then clearly you don't understand it.

she was on the bed calling players forward to have sex with her; even at one point saying to one of them "no not you, him" and then pointed to Johns. He reckons he declined (he had already had sex with her) and left the room; that he did come back into the room to check everything was OK and that the situation was all OK and everyone there was into it.

LOLZIPOPS! Yeah, that's believable. Good responsible Johns had his turn, then let others have their go, left and came back to make sure kiddies were playing nice.

Please.

If you think that's "more believable" Je$ter there's something seriously wrong with you!

 

[Coxy]

As i keep **** saying and people keep **** ignoring, if she is this traumatised by the incident then she wasn't "all into it".

If anyone's opinion i trust it's her doctor/psychologist.

You ever heard of post trauma?

Sure this event may have affected her, but it could have happened AFTER THE INCIDENT, in which case she would have not displayed it AT THE TIME

Face palm! Major major face palm.

schmix: over to you. You can explain trauma and post trauma much better than I can.