I hate the media!

[Nashy]

A woman was on sky this morning, she's something to do with the league and is talking about the other players are now facing rape charges...WTF!

Aren't we meant to be innocent 'till proven guilty? or is it now guilty 'till proven innocent? Her and Tracy Grimshaw want to get off thier high horse and stop slagging off at these players and ruining thier lives when they have no way of knowing the truth. The cops have looked into it and the players were cleared, or do we just throw that out the window because an upset woman has made a statement?

I am sure she is now less than proud of what happened, but that does not mean someone has to pay for it. This notion that it is never anyone's own fault, this society that now believes that there is always someone else to blame when the result of something is not what we had hoped for is just pathetic.

I can fully understand that this rot has played on her mind and will do for years, but IF she was willing and IF the cops looked into it and said she WAS found to be willing, then that's it. If traumatises her after the fact, then that is in no way her fault, but it is her load to carry and NOT that of the others involved. She needs to get the help and care of her friends and family and I hope she can put her life back together, but to wreck other people's lives because she has a fairly heartwrenching case "buyer's regret" 7 years down the track, is not fair to them or their families.

If one or ten people agree to do something, then one or however many find that they have remorse after the fact, I can't see how that is then automaticlly the fault of the others.

Perhaps we are talking about two different females who were interviewed, but a female detective for the NZ police has stated that these players are keeping quiet because they will face rape charges based on the stories in the media.

Of course she protected her ass by saying "If the allegations are true"

 

[Chumbason]

OXY-351 and ronny are a very sad reflection on today's society, hopefully they are in the minority!

I am a sad reflection of today's society becuase I want to know more about the situation (beyond the accusations of a blurred out face) before passing judgment?? :roll:

+1
Fair call Ronny, I feel pretty strongly about this and speak with my own life experiance, and while I have in a way made my mind up over the matter, I think it's a tad unfair that those accused are ruined and have to front with face and name splattered every where, while the one pointing the finger can hide in the dark. Unfair much!

Between the media, do-gooders, bleeding hearts, league haters and left wing woman's groups an accusation is as good as being found guilty... life ruined.

 

[Chumbason]

A woman was on sky this morning, she's something to do with the league and is talking about the other players are now facing rape charges...WTF!

Aren't we meant to be innocent 'till proven guilty? or is it now guilty 'till proven innocent? Her and Tracy Grimshaw want to get off thier high horse and stop slagging off at these players and ruining thier lives when they have no way of knowing the truth. The cops have looked into it and the players were cleared, or do we just throw that out the window because an upset woman has made a statement?

I am sure she is now less than proud of what happened, but that does not mean someone has to pay for it. This notion that it is never anyone's own fault, this society that now believes that there is always someone else to blame when the result of something is not what we had hoped for is just pathetic.

I can fully understand that this rot has played on her mind and will do for years, but IF she was willing and IF the cops looked into it and said she WAS found to be willing, then that's it. If traumatises her after the fact, then that is in no way her fault, but it is her load to carry and NOT that of the others involved. She needs to get the help and care of her friends and family and I hope she can put her life back together, but to wreck other people's lives because she has a fairly heartwrenching case "buyer's regret" 7 years down the track, is not fair to them or their families.

If one or ten people agree to do something, then one or however many find that they have remorse after the fact, I can't see how that is then automaticlly the fault of the others.

Perhaps we are talking about two different females who were interviewed, but a female detective for the NZ police has stated that these players are keeping quiet because they will face rape charges based on the stories in the media.

Of course she protected her ass by saying "If the allegations are true"

I think she was Former sex discrimination officer Sue Gowen(spelling)

 

[Playboy Bunny]

I think the other people should be named. If everything is true about her being a willing participant in everything that happened then they have legally done nothing wrong so there is nothing wrong with coming out and saying who they are just like Matty Johns has. HOWEVER if she only gave consent to matty and whoever else then yes the other who had sex with her would have commited rape and then I still think they should be named because they should be dealth with approriately.

Apparently the NRL have just put out a notice to those other people who were involved to notify their family if they haven't already done so as some information may get leaked that they don't want. Ooo...OooOOOoo..Ooooo

 

[OXY-351]

OXY the way someone acts does not give anyone the right to treat them in a disgusting, degrading manner.

Some women get off on this stuff though. See you (and I certainly don't either) understand how they could, becuase you don't think like that. I'm not saying this girl wanted this to happen at the time, but IF you beleive Johns (which is questionable, but there are always 2 side), she did.

Not sure why you continually want to compare this to other incidents that we don't know the details of

So we know all the details of this incident too? I'm sayign what Ronny is saying. No one knows the full story of what went on, people have really only heard one side of the story. They are happy to hang Johns out to dry though because they beleive the only real side of the story that has been told. The one that the media has put the spin on for us to beleive.

Both the "Clare" interview and the ACA interview were heavily biased towards the females side of the story. They all took the anti NRL player slant because that's what is fashionable at the moment. They aren't journalists, they are senstionalists. As if a story about how women get off with sleeping with NRL players is going to attarct as much attention as a story about NRL players raping a 19 year old girl.

 

[mrslong]

Some women

SOME women, the MAJORITY of women don't get off on this sort of stuff and DON'T want to sleep with filthy football players...and those skanks that are in the minority make it hard for the woman who is actually abused to make a case for herself!

 

[Chumbason]

Well said OXY and Bunny, this thing has so many sides and in the end there may be no way of getting to the truth, not to mention that the media is just loving it and pouring more gas on the fire every day just like they did with the broncos thing last year. I heard that every pub in Brisbane had been contacted by the media looking for stories or footage of broncos on the piss. Bloody media, never let the truth OR the process of justice get in the way of a good story.

 

[Nashy]

Some women

SOME women, the MAJORITY of women don't get off on this sort of stuff and DON'T want to sleep with filthy football players...and those skanks that are in the minority make it hard for the woman who is actually abused to make a case for herself!

Not having a go. But how do you know you're in the majority?

 

[mrslong]

Some women

SOME women, the MAJORITY of women don't get off on this sort of stuff and DON'T want to sleep with filthy football players...and those skanks that are in the minority make it hard for the woman who is actually abused to make a case for herself!

Not having a go. But how do you know you're in the majority?

eusa_think maybe because I'm a woman and the majority of people I understand and spend time with a female. MOST women don't go down the pub after the game and pork nrl players. [icon_shru

 

[MIKEY]

most dont but some do !

 

[gUt]

Pork lol, haven't heard that one in a while.

 

[OXY-351]

Some women

SOME women, the MAJORITY of women don't get off on this sort of stuff and DON'T want to sleep with filthy football players...and those skanks that are in the minority make it hard for the woman who is actually abused to make a case for herself!

Agreed 100%, but just because the majoirty of women don't, doesn't mean this girl was in the majority. You'd assume she was in the majority based purely on the odds, but then the majority of women also wouldn't go back to a hotel room with 2 footballers in the first place.

Even if she did want to sleep with just the 2 of them, it doesn't make it right that 10 others turn up, but perhaps, just perhaps, she was up for this at the time. There is a certain % that would be, and it's entirely possible she is in that minority.

The point is, no one, apart from those involved, really knows exactly what went on and not enough evidence was found to lay any charges, yet Johns has been punished to what I consider too great an extent based purely on speculation and public reaction to stories that are so obviously biased in their reporting.

 

[lynx000]

To some of the posters in this thread:

As the Four Corners reporter Sarah Ferguson pointed out: "A woman involved in degrading group sex can still be traumatised whether she consents or not." Clare told the program she felt powerless to stop what was being done to her by a "long line" of players. "I thought I was worthless and I thought I was nothing. And I think I was in shock. I didn't scream and they used a lot of … mental power over me and, and belittled me and made me feel really small like I was just a little old woman."

Source: SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/morality- ... tml?page=2

It is one thing to look at these sorts of events in legalastic terms of consent in the context of the (masculine derived construction) of the Law, but what about the moral and ethical context?

Johns (and others) knew exactly what they were doing. Johns was 30 and married. No-one gave a toss about the consequences of their actions on the hearts and minds of anyone.

As far as I am concerned, there is practically zero focus placed on developing male emotional IQ in the social construction of gender, as is clearly evident in episodes such as this.

The opposite side of this tarnished coin is the disgusting “Beauty Myth†perpetrated on girls and women. I know it well. My daughter has been ravaged by an Eating Disorder since her early teens. She was bullied mercilessly at school for years.

Of course, it's all her fault - she consented to going to school.

No disrespect to anyone else who has posted, but this is one of the more insightful posts I have read on this topic.

 

[mrslong]

There's a HUGE difference between slamming 2 blokes and 12. 12 I imagine would be pretty fricken painful tbph.

 

[Playboy Bunny]

Depends how much she has slept around before hand lol

 

[Nashy]

DVDA!!!

 

[lynx000]

Okay, my two cents worth again.

TLCC said `As has been stated over & over again, the psychologist attributed the PTSD to this incident nothing else.'

To be fair mate, have you read the psychologist's report?? I know I haven't. Unless you have read the whole thing how do you know what it says, other than what has been reported (which may or may not have been accurate or biased).

From many, many years of experience, imo it is very likely the truth of what happens lies somewhere between the two versions that have been given. Only one thing is certain, all of us posting on here will never know what the truth is, so the various positions that have been adopted depend on your personal take on flawed evidence from both sides.

The fact that there has been a diagnosis of PTSD has been thrown up as an argument that therefore something must have happened. I am afraid that is not evidence that something did happen, it is called reasoning from a conclusion. In any event, the accuracy of a pscyhologist or a psychiatrist's opinion is completely dependent upon the accuracy and the completeness of the history provided by the patient. Whoever diagnosed her has only her heard her version of the events of the night in question (and I am not saying they are necessarily wrong) merely that they have only heard one side. The psychologist or psychiatrist in the absence of competing information is bound to accept the patient's history. If what happened is more like John's version, then the diagnosis of PTSD is possibly flawed.

Psych conditions are diagnosed under the DSM-IV Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. The full criteria that have to be satisfied for the diagnosis are:-

`The essential feature of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder is the development of characteristic symptoms following exposure to an extreme traumatic stressor involving direct personal experience of an event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury, or other threat to one's physical integrity; or witnessing an event that involves death, injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of another person; or learning about unexpected or violent death, serious harm, or threat of death or injury experienced by a family member or other close associate (Criterion A1). The person's response to the event must involve intense fear, helplessness, or horror (or in children, the response must involve disorganized or agitated behavior) (Criterion A2). The characteristic symptoms resulting from the exposure to the extreme trauma include persistent reexperiencing of the traumatic event (Criterion B), persistent avoidance of stimuli associated with the trauma and numbing of general responsiveness (Criterion C), and persistent symptoms of increased arousal (Criterion D). The full symptom picture must be present for more than 1 month (Criterion E), and the disturbance must cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning (Criterion F).'

If the truth is closer to John's version about her directing which players etc, it is really questionable that she could satisfy Criterion A1. Once again, I am speculating, but I bet whoever diagnosed had not heard the alternative version. Could it be that there may have been some other condition in the background (we don't know the full story and never will). Could it be that she has sometime afterwards started ruminating about the events and this has continued until it has become her raison d'etre, that she has convinced herself that something has happened that perhaps does not accord with the actuality. Once again, we will never know.

But as RNA posted, morally and ethically what went on was wrong (from my moral compass). It is then a question for society as a whole whether we then take people to task, for example, losing their jobs, having their reputations shredded, for an action that the `majority' regard as morally and ethically wrong. That is such a quicksand of shifting opinion, I think it is very dangerous. By whose morals or ethics is a person to be judged. What one person may find morally or ethically reprehensible, others are fine with. I really do not know if I would feel comfortable making that sort of call.

We are left with a young woman who apparently has significant psychological issues because of what occurred. I hope she is able to get the treatment she needs to move on in her life. I think there is a strong argument that one of the (apparently many) `mature' adult males that were present that night should have stepped in and perhaps put a stop to it.

Most of the posts seem to have adopted either an anti-Clare or anti-player stance when once again all of them share some degree of responsibility for what occurred that night.

 

[rnabokov]

As so many posters say, and me included... The point is...

Well one point is that each society adopts and enforces a moral and ethical Code, and we live by it or take the consequences - like it or not. And in most ways, but not all, ours is pretty good on the whole.

This Code can of course be changed - but that depends whose paying the politicians, and which pressure groups (like Fundamentalist Christians) hold sway over government decisions.

So the point is that one's personal moral or ethical point of view is one thing, but what must prevail for civil order and the public good is the accepted social moral and ethical Code. Go rob a bank and find out the consequences, even if you intend to donate the proceeds to your local Soup Kitchen.

My other point was, whatever you think, the Law, and I have studied law, is largely constructed of legal decisions made by MEN: judges and pollies, for centuries.

Fortunately, the Law is evolving for the better, but it's a slow process with so many minority groups (like women) in few positions of public influence, compared to the dominant white, anglo-saxon christian males.

Maybe that's why Marriage is still, largely, legally, essentially viewed in the courts as a contractual relationship where the woman becomes the man's property, and why, in rape cases, it's inevitably the victim who has to prove her innocence rather than be protected by the presumption of innocence.

Presumption of innocence? In a room full of drunken men, Icons of League no less, one of whom has no hesitation in cheating on his wife, and a young probably impressionable girl - to whom should we first give the presumption of innocence?

As far the Icons of League are concerned, like us all, you take the consequences of your actions - one of which, in Johns's case, apart from anything else, was adultery. But then that's ok isn't it. He's a boy and he was pissed....

But of course, THAT moral and ethical choice by Johns doesn't really come into this debate does it.

It's really all about Clare isn't it. That adulteress. There should be a public stoning!