Scandal Barry Cable being sued for historical child sexual abuse

Remove this Banner Ad

News.com are reporting the judge said this.


“Judge Mark Herron also said Mr Cable would not take part in the upcoming five-day trial.”

not the action of a person who feels they are innocent .
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The gruesome details have just been laid out by the ABC

In her statement of claim, the woman alleges the sexual abuse started in the late 1960s when she was a teenager and her family and Mr Cable's family lived in the same neighbourhood.

She says Mr Cable once told her "he would teach her about the facts of life and the birds and the bees" so "she would be a big hit with men" before he regularly molested her at various locations including in his car at a scenic location known as Zig Zag in Gooseberry Hill.

She further alleges that around 1971, Mr Cable took her to the Perth Football Club, where in the change rooms, he forced her onto a bench, attempted to rape her and struck her across the mouth as they were driving home.

The woman claims Mr Cable also threatened to sexually abuse her younger sister if she did not comply with his instructions or "properly appreciate his attention"

The initial abuse is alleged to have happened while the girl was aged between about 12 and 17, but the woman also says the sexual behaviour and harassment continued after she turned 18

Mr Cable is not taking part in the trial and is not represented by a lawyer, but he has filed a defence in which he states he had a three-year "consensual sexual relationship" with the woman around 1983.

He also points out that between 1974 and 1977, he and his family lived in Melbourne because he was playing for North Melbourne in the VFL. ( hey Barry, the allegations pre date this period????)




 
Carey and Ablett Snr (least in our lifetimes) will (or should) never be elevated to Legend Status in the Hall of Fame, same should apply to Cable and other past great found to have proven to have done (within reasonable grounds of guilt) like Cable has (alleged) to have done.

Mind you, OJ Simpson is still in the NFL/American Football Hall of Fame and he got away with killing 2 people, so who knows ?

Both Ablett Snr and Carey should be legend status. It is a football HOF and I am sick to death of people trying to turn it into something it isn’t.
 
Both Ablett Snr and Carey should be legend status. It is a football HOF and I am sick to death of people trying to turn it into something it isn’t.
HOF Selection Criteria;
The committee considers candidates on the basis of record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship and character. The number of games played, coached or umpired or years of service is a consideration only and does not determine eligibility.

Well at least they qualify on the first two criteria.

You either have the integrity/character criteria or you make it open slather.
To take it to the extreme you'd therefore be happy I assume that say a paedophile could be included in the HOF provided they footballed good.
 
Last edited:
This was front page news over 20 years ago but it mysteriously disappeared once some high ranking people got involved in the case. It was always going to come back and haunt some people.

I seem to recall seeing this in the late 90s as a major story on a TV current affairs show. In recent years I tried to look it up online, but much of it has been scrubbed away with only a few whispers on (often long defunct) forums.
 
Obviously not - but it tacitly impacts on whether a court decides to proceed with the action. If the victim isn't likely to see any money it's not worth the court's time, and as a civil matter it won't be considered to be denying the victim justice.
Tacitly? Are you saying a court can refuse to hear the civil case and provide a reason other than the "tacit" reason? Does a civil proceeding court require or prefer availability of compensatory funds for it to proceed?
 
I don't know if it is the same woman but I read the criminal brief over 20 years ago. Was shocked the police didn't pursue it, but that was pre CCC.
Imo there was enough evidence to charge.
Subsequently met him during the schools football competition where the Cup is named after him and let's just say you wouldn't want him around any young girls.

The Police Investigation appears to be discussed here in Chapter 15 of The Royal Commission Report into WA Police Corruption.

Complainant and Accused referred to as Q1 and Q2. Pages 495 onwards. (105 onwards on the document reader)




Web capture_8-2-2023_35710_www.parliament.wa.gov.au.jpeg

No charges subsequently laid from the commisssion but in evidence one of officers refers to "death by memo" as being a phrase they used regarding obstructions.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure this was previously alluded to on BigFooty with a well known past player being under investigation that (at the time) couldn't be named.

Edit: Yes it was

Funny how we get edited these days for saying Roo did the dirty on his missus, but in the 2019 thread Cable was clearly named more than once....crickets from Chief and the Mod Squad.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Funny how we get edited these days for saying Roo did the dirty on his missus, but in the 2019 thread Cable was clearly named more than once....crickets from Chief and the Mod Squad.

Chief and co can confirm, but I believe they do legitimately get legal requests to remove names and details from time to time.

It's not just some kind of moderator being overprotective of someone.
 
Chief and co can confirm, but I believe they do legitimately get legal requests to remove names and details from time to time.

It's not just some kind of moderator being overprotective of someone.
So in 2019 it was ok to repeatedly name someone accused of detestable things who's name was suppressed in the media (not defending Cable), but now 3 and a half years later we can't name someone for being unfaithful?

Is this what they call cancel culture or has this site just gone soft.
 
So in 2019 it was ok to repeatedly name someone accused of detestable things who's name was suppressed in the media (not defending Cable), but now 3 and a half years later we can't name someone for being unfaithful?

Is this what they call cancel culture or has this site just gone soft.

I'm not Chief, ask him yourself. I do know they've mentioned previously they'll get legal requests to pull things down sometimes though, so might be that it's been tightened up on over the past few years.
 
I'm not Chief, ask him yourself. I do know they've mentioned previously they'll get legal requests to pull things down sometimes though, so might be that it's been tightened up on over the past few years.
Not having a go at you. Have been told by Chief there are "long standing rules" regarding naming people. Just pointing out the hypocrisy.

Anyway, nothing will change. Not worth arguing with our righteous overlord.
 
Carey and Ablett Snr (least in our lifetimes) will (or should) never be elevated to Legend Status in the Hall of Fame, same should apply to Cable and other past great found to have proven to have done (within reasonable grounds of guilt) like Cable has (alleged) to have done.

Mind you, OJ Simpson is still in the NFL/American Football Hall of Fame and he got away with killing 2 people, so who knows ?
Unless you're 80 I think you'll be wrong.

On SM-S901E using BigFooty.com mobile app
 
Another victim has come forward to give evidence.
Had to laugh, Cable’s son asked for an adjournment and said the victim was taking advantage of his dad financial predicament , the judge disagreed.


 
HOF Selection Criteria;
The committee considers candidates on the basis of record, ability, integrity, sportsmanship and character. The number of games played, coached or umpired or years of service is a consideration only and does not determine eligibility.

Well at least they qualify on the first two criteria.

You either have the integrity/character criteria or you make it open slather.
To take it to the extreme you'd therefore be happy I assume that say a paedophile could be included in the HOF provided they footballed good.

So how did they get in the HOF then? And as they are in the HOF why can’t they be legends? Just delaying the inevitable.
Should John Nichols be thrown out as he went to jail for embezzling. Poor character there.
Barry Cable to be excluded now?
Everyone would have something in their closet.
If you are not going to reward the greatest ever players then the HOF is just a joke.
 
So how did they get in the HOF then? And as they are in the HOF why can’t they be legends? Just delaying the inevitable.
Should John Nichols be thrown out as he went to jail for embezzling. Poor character there.
Barry Cable to be excluded now?
Everyone would have something in their closet.
If you are not going to reward the greatest ever players then the HOF is just a joke.
No the HOF is not a joke - the boys club established over the last 70 years is the joke that the AFL continues to pretend never happened.
Mr Football is the classic example of a blind eye turned.
As well as the bloke who cried for him on the footy show that was named father of the year whilst playing the skin flute in a different orchestra.
 
No the HOF is not a joke - the boys club established over the last 70 years is the joke that the AFL continues to pretend never happened.
Mr Football is the classic example of a blind eye turned.
As well as the bloke who cried for him on the footy show that was named father of the year whilst playing the skin flute in a different orchestra.

Well as there is no AFL without the players the greatest of all players should be recognised in their HOF.
The most loveliest of people is an award that doesn’t exist yet in the AFL. Although the way the world is going I am sure it will be centre stage soon. Not sure who will watch those awards though.
 
Well as there is no AFL without the players the greatest of all players should be recognised in their HOF.
The most loveliest of people is an award that doesn’t exist yet in the AFL. Although the way the world is going I am sure it will be centre stage soon. Not sure who will watch those awards though.
I never said the HOF is a joke - just pointing out that the AFL has a long history of turning a blind eye to the misdemeanors of some of it's so-called legends.
And the fact that the current group of commentators / press corp / AFL hierarchy still don't have the guts to call out some of these "legends" and still treat them like demi-gods whilst lambasting any current young player who might stray into the same territory is gutless and mind boggling at best.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top