Rumour Jack Watts off field issues.

Remove this Banner Ad

A few years ago girls traded pics with two AFL players. It was clear that the intention was private. The recipients didn't just spread them contrary to the intentions of the players, they actually SOLD them to a media outlet who published them in a national magazine.

No charges were laid.
If you're talking about Swan and Cloke, then you are wrong- charges were laid:
https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl...dane-swan-footage-online-20180828-p500a7.html

Edit: oh wait, that was another time, lol!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I think, but I'm not certain, that accessing someone's computer is only illegal if you are doing it with the intention of committing some other crime, like fraud. So unless they can frame it that the intention was to harass online or cyberbully or some other BS, there's no issue. Certainly, the cops would take one look at it, piss themselves laughing and say he had it coming.

Sending out nude images of someone without consent is a specific offence, unrelated

the girl did release them online, surely with the intention to embarrass, harass or whatever you want to call it.

"Certainly, the cops would take one look at it, piss themselves laughing and say he had it coming."

This is the moronic double standard right there in writing.
 
the girl did release them online, surely with the intention to embarrass, harass or whatever you want to call it.

"Certainly, the cops would take one look at it, piss themselves laughing and say he had it coming."

This is the moronic double standard right there in writing.
What would the offence be mate? Confident you have no idea what you’re talking about.
 
the girl did release them online, surely with the intention to embarrass, harass or whatever you want to call it.

"Certainly, the cops would take one look at it, piss themselves laughing and say he had it coming."

This is the moronic double standard right there in writing.

Different situations.

The recent Dane Swan video is a better comparison. That woman has been charged, and rightfully so.
 
I can understand the sensitivity around gender bias though.

A few years ago girls traded pics with two AFL players. It was clear that the intention was private. The recipients didn't just spread them contrary to the intentions of the players, they actually SOLD them to a media outlet who published them in a national magazine.

No charges were laid.

That's certainly changed since. Dane Swan went to police, and charges were laid.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

the girl did release them online, surely with the intention to embarrass, harass or whatever you want to call it.

"Certainly, the cops would take one look at it, piss themselves laughing and say he had it coming."

This is the moronic double standard right there in writing.
I don't think so, why should state resources be wasted on crap like this. If genders were reversed, police still wouldn't want a bar of it. Like I said, if there's noody pics, its a different situation.
 
Pretty ordinary by my man Jack, but thinking this isn’t what 90% of the AFL players are like is naive

Not naive. The media is only going to report on the scandalous stories, not the stuff about the good husband who went to the Zoo with his kids. Sure some AFL players are like Watts, but 90% is a fair bit extreme.

DqKB0dtVYAI30It.jpg
 
Last edited:
Haha he's a bigger moron than I first thought. Also writes like he's a 15 year old.

No surprise he's a product of the Demons.
I guess the Roos don't have any players or former players misbehaving............pretty sure shannon grant was in the papers this week.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top