Remove this Banner Ad

Ablett Bashed

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Blues_Man said:
stop trying to talk about football champions you Loins bandwagoner ...as if anyone gives a shyte what you think ..best you stick to bum sniffers where your expertise would excell . respect needs to be earned and being good at playing a sport does not give you the right to engage in any anti social behaviour you like .
OJ Simpson was a champion sportsman ..do you consider him a role model like you do Ablett ??? he just like Ablett was also never convicted
now go away and try and think up a reasonable arguement why some people other than misguided suckers like you and a few other cat fans believe ablett not to be a pilliar of society
Click to expand...

are you still here????
come on, i, and all of us are waiting for the facts that you know. rather than your opinion on everyone. come on mate, pull your head out of your ar_se and tell us.
 
I hate it when users get banned.
I'm anti-ban.
I believe that the power of the general users to shut an idiot up is far more resonent than admin just hitting a button.

No offense to the admins, but I simply don't believe in banning.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

hyperswivel said:
I hate it when users get banned.
I'm anti-ban.
I believe that the power of the general users to shut an idiot up is far more resonent than admin just hitting a button.

No offense to the admins, but I simply don't believe in banning.
Click to expand...
That is one school of thought but sometimes good threads are wasted with back and forth rubbish. Plus mods have limited time so it is a shortcut we need to take to keep the site going.
 
Fair enough.
Good to hear a Mods perspective.
I've just been on the end of one too many bans for one-off lighthearted jokes that users have enjoyed but Mods have taken offence too.
 
Chief said:
That is one school of thought but sometimes good threads are wasted with back and forth rubbish. Plus mods have limited time so it is a shortcut we need to take to keep the site going.
Click to expand...

Sometimes its better that way too. 24 hour banning made me think about a lot of things and my posting on Bigfooty.

The thing with idiots like Blues_Man is, no matter how much you try and shoot twits like that down they will not change as they revel in the security of being behind a monitor.

So in this instance a banning was very apt!
 
skilts said:
How fortunate we are to have a fully-fledged judge in our midst. On what basis could you possibly say what the girl knew or didn't know about drugs? Do you have access to privileged information to which the rest of us are not privy, or are you basing your assessments on media reports and rumour?
Click to expand...
No, just making the point that it is irrelevant whether or not Alisha had taken e's before. What matters is her knowledge and experience - relative to Gary - of the cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, speed and alcohol (esp. in combination) that killed her. Some people have been making the point that since she (according to Gary at least) "knew about different kinds of pills" that she was on a par with him. That's not right. I know about different kinds of dogs, doesn't mean I'm gonna win a dog show. Do you get it yet?
skilts said:
Is it in any way possible that Ablett's responsiblity to exercise a duty of care could have been diminished because of his own state of intoxication?
Click to expand...
Certainly. Diminished, but not absolved. You would also need look at his state at various points in the night out ie when he gave her the speed, the ecstasy, the coke etc. His culpability is cummulative.
skilts said:
Your post is a mixture of emotion and vitriol, masquerading as rational assessment. Your comment connecting social status and its effect on the decision-making process reeks of sociology, or worse, an exposure to social workers.
Click to expand...
Maybe your little dig there plays well on a footy discussion thread, but common-sense - and the law - already takes into account things like social status on decision-making. For example, Gary's intoxicatation, as you raised yourself.
skilts said:
To present an assessment of the situation as posed by you, as having the benefit of a scientific aspect to it, is meaningless waffle. Are you saying that the power balance and responsibility in relationships is scientifically measurable? You sir, are a fool, and a dangerous one at that, because not everyone will see through your vacuous gum-flapping.
Click to expand...
Should I have provided citations for this? Case law perhaps, or scientific journals? C'mon, get real. Power in relationships does not have to be "scientifically measurable" for it to be taken into account. It's done all the time - it's called "judgment". Can I suggest you visit a court room and see what actually happens? It's not all DNA evidence, as your years of watching CSI would led you to believe. Judges (and juries) actually weigh up intangible factors. And balance of power in relationships is something they are very comfortable doing.
skilts said:
The crime committed by Ablett was that he may have refused to tell the paramedics what drug they'd been ingesting. This pre-supposes he was capable of doing so, given his addled state. No charges could be laid with any prospect of a conviction, for a variety of reasons. This is why we have a legal system to act on behalf of people who are criminally wronged. Unless of course, you wish to retry the matter, given your exalted judicial status.
Click to expand...
Firstly, the law is an ass. Police are imperfect. Mistakes get made and justice is miscarried. Remember when Victoria's chief detective, Simon Overland, publicly expressed doubt that his officers would be able to properly investigate an AFL star (Culpitt "missing evidence" case)? I certainly do. True, Gary wasn't found guilty. Neither was Greg Domaszewicz or OJ Simpson. Doesn't mean that people can't discuss the cases.

Secondly, actions don't have to be "criminal" to be "unlawful". This is difficult for ignorant people (not necessarily stupid, just ill-informed) to grasp. There is a whole body of civil law and tort law (roughly 50% of the law) that deals with "wrong action" that isn't specifically a crime. If you read my comments, you'll find that that is what I'm talking about here. Gary "wronged" Alisha, and avoided sanction through further dodginess.
skilts said:
If by some odious mischance, you have some involvement in the legal system, in no circumstances should you ever allow anybody to coerce you into appearing for the defence.
Click to expand...
Whatever. Fortunately, you're not the licensing body in this state. Your whole argument seems to boil down to:
  • The law should take into account Gary's mental state in determining his culpability or negligence
  • The law can't take into account power in relationships between people since it can't be scientifically measured
  • Sociologists and social workers are bad
  • People shouldn't express views contrary to the courts on internet discussion boards
  • I'm dangerous and shouldn't practise law
Is that it? Got anything else? Why don't you take your foot out of your mouth for moment, catch your breath, and come back with something a little better thought out.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

theGimp said:
Feeling proud that you have caused someone to get banned are you.
Click to expand...

No one caused Blues_Man to get banned. He did this on his own if you care to go back and read the rubbish he was saying.
 
People should think before posting in relation to a named person as on this thread. Nobody can say Ablett did this or that, because only the people who investigated it know. Not someone behind a computer in another state.
 
theGimp said:
Feeling proud that you have caused someone to get banned are you.

run off and report me to you pathetic little sook.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

yes gimp, it was all my fault. no one elses doing, just me. it was tough, but i eventually succeeded in my quest to get blues man banned. i'd been planning this for a long time. could you tell.

gimp, you are the king of all morons.....and the queen as well:rolleyes:
 
wishiwas said:
yes gimp, it was all my fault. no one elses doing, just me. it was tough, but i eventually succeeded in my quest to get blues man banned. i'd been planning this for a long time. could you tell.

gimp, you are the king of all morons.....and the queen as well:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Running out of excuses, wishiwas?:eek: :eek: :eek:

It is because of idiots like you that I sought a serious football forum.

Troll away.
 
Flag Man said:
Running out of excuses, wishiwas?:eek: :eek: :eek:

It is because of idiots like you that I sought a serious football forum.

Troll away.
Click to expand...

yes flag, cos i dont get trolled either:rolleyes:

oh, and what did i make an excuse for in the first place.

and, if you have sought a serious football forum, why are you still here??:eek:
 
wishiwas said:
yes gimp, it was all my fault. no one elses doing, just me. it was tough, but i eventually succeeded in my quest to get blues man banned. i'd been planning this for a long time. could you tell.
Click to expand...

Yes, I could tell. And so could most posters.

Just another solid piece of evidence that you are a pathetic little sook.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

thetan said:
No, just making the point that it is irrelevant whether or not Alisha had taken e's before. What matters is her knowledge and experience - relative to Gary - of the cocaine, heroin, ecstasy, speed and alcohol (esp. in combination) that killed her. Some people have been making the point that since she (according to Gary at least) "knew about different kinds of pills" that she was on a par with him. That's not right. I know about different kinds of dogs, doesn't mean I'm gonna win a dog show. Do you get it yet?
Click to expand...

How can you make a judgement that Ablett knew more about drugs than Alisha? I bet there are thousands of people out there younger than me who know a lot more about the drugs listed than I do but how do you decide that? Do you take a quiz or do you just assume?
 
More importantly, how long ago was this? And how does it affect football today?
Oh it doesn't? Great! So how about we all have a nice big drink of shut the f*ck up and go watch Friday Night Footy :D
 
Junkie said:
How can you make a judgement that Ablett knew more about drugs than Alisha? I bet there are thousands of people out there younger than me who know a lot more about the drugs listed than I do but how do you decide that? Do you take a quiz or do you just assume?
Click to expand...
No quizes or assumptions, just application of reason and evidence. Firstly, Gary had much more drugs than her without dying:

I ended up giving her a very, very tiny amount - very small amount. I - I mean I - I didn't even think it would affect her..... a very small - I had - probably a line, 6 or 8 times of the amount she had. She took hers first.(Transcript of interview with Gary Ablett, The Age, 28/2/2003)
Click to expand...
This suggests he has built up a tolerance and he admitted to longer-term use. NB: he is not 6-8 times heavier than her and his liver probably doesn't work as well as hers. Ergo, he's had more alcohol, heroin, coke and probably e's than her.

Secondly, the Coroner said that she was out of her league:

[Alisha Horan had] become enmeshed in a culture of alcoholism and drug taking with her football hero [and had been] partying out of her league. (Coroner Noreen Toohey, quoted in The Age, 28/2/2003)
Click to expand...
It's not because of the age gap. It's the drug-experience gap. The Coroner was fully-appraised of the facts of this case and issues surrounding drugs and the law. We have to trust her assessments in this matter.

Are those two reasons good enough for you? Or are you still going to wilfully ignore facts and common-sense to protect your childhood hero?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Ablett Bashed

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top