Channel 7 and Jordan De Goey

[Kappa]

I dont think its correct to say that the clubs have knowledge of the information contained in the briefs or the full set of circumstances/facts that form the basis of the charge.

If you were charged would you be handing the details/brief over to an employer while it was before the courts (any lawyer worth their salt would be advising strongly against doing so)? highly unlikely. Would you disclose the charge? depends on the role/any obligations you may have.

You're right, I don't know what they did, nor will I be drawn into discussing whether they are guilty or not. However, i can argue the treatment (not punishment, that infers guilt) they should both be given because im advocating for a no-fault policy that draws a blunt distinction for offences carrying certain maximum penalties (I said 5 years+ which is the limit I would set if I had the reins, e.g, if an offence carried a maximum 4 years sentence that would not be grounds to stand down)... both charges in this circumstance carry a penalty that falls within my proposed policy;

De Goey - Indecent assault carries a maximum penalty of 10 years imprisonment Section 39 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic) repealed 29 June 2015, offence alleged to have occurred prior to the repeal of the offence.
Taylor - Aggravated assault occasioning bodily harm - the offence carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment which may increase to 7 years imprisonment if the offence occurs in circumstances of aggravation. Section 317(1)(a) Criminal Code Compilation Act 1913 (WA)

Are you talking in general or about De Goey's case specifically?

For De Goey this whole thing happened like 5 years ago and Collingwood was fully involved from the start, the AFL also knew exactly what happened.

They also know exactly what the young Swan player is accused of doing, which is why quite logically the two are facing different outcomes.

 

[NoobPie]

You are talking rubbish here.

You said this...


...and this...


And then I asked...


... to which you responded...





What was poorly worded occurred after all of this and only in my exchanges with Aramis, and was cleared up quite quickly.

No, what was poorly worded was your original question "Do you think it mitigates whatever he is accused of?" . It took two pages for you to clarify that what you were precisely asking was "do you think (his age) should mitigate his guilt if is found to have committed the act he was accused of?"

I would have answered "no" to that. But you didn't asked that.

You then followed up in response to Aramis with....

It might be in sentencing but he is still accused of as an adult.

Given that the age of criminal responsibility is 10 and the use of age to refute criminal responsibility is only possible to 14 in Australian states, that was hardly clarifying your original vague question

When I answered your question "yes" I was referring to neither legal "guilt" or sentencing. I responded in a moral sense and - precisely within the context your vague question was put - whether or not the AFL / Collingwood should stand him down.

People don't have access to the vague, clouded thoughts you are thinking when you make a post. Be clearer next time

 

[BF Tiger]

No, what was poorly worded was your original question "Do you think it mitigates whatever he is accused of?" . It took two pages for you to clarify that what you were precisely asking was "do you think (his age) should mitigate his guilt if is found to have committed the act he was accused of?"

I would have answered "no" to that. But you didn't asked that.

You then followed up in response to Aramis with....



Given that the age of criminal responsibility is 10 and the use of age to refute criminal responsibility is only possible to 14 in Australian states, that was hardly clarifying your original vague question

When I answered your question "yes" I was referring to neither legal "guilt" or sentencing. I responded in a moral sense and - precisely within the context your vague question was put - whether or not the AFL / Collingwood should stand him down.

People don't have access to the vague, clouded thoughts you are thinking when you make a post. Be clearer next time

Hold on... your asking me to be clearer when you’re the one who made the initial statement that you now claim I misinterpreted, which if I did it is because it wasn’t clear. We’re talking a legal matter so why would I be thinking you were writing in moral terms?

This all gets back to you and your lack of clarity. Be clearer next time.

Just for the record, and only IMHO... De Goey’s age at the time of the alleged incident does not mitigate his alleged actions in any legal, moral or ethical sense.

 

[GCS in 11]

It just sounds like you wanted him stood down before Monday night when he destroyed the suns and now you're angry you lost because he was the difference.

Fair to think that with the timing, but this was just De Goey’s first match back in months. I’ve had this position from the start when this first broke (pg 2&3).

Man assaults woman, gets charged by the police and faces up to 10 years in prison for the alleged crime.

If you can read the above and think that person should be representing the AFL on prime time television (and getting lauded for his efforts), you have a serious problem.

Am I asking for him to be locked up now? Innocent until proven guilty doesn’t mean “should be allowed to continue playing in front of a million people and being a face of a company’s brand”, it means we as a community don’t deprive you of your freedom and lock you away in a cage until we are reasonably sure you committed that crime.

They are completely separate systems, and as a company, the AFL should not let De Goey represent them while he has charges of assaulting a woman against him.

The AFL has stood up against violence towards women multiple times over the last few years, this just makes them look hypocritical and a laughing stock.

The AFL can’t pretend to be moral arbiters for society and have strong stances on violence against women like they proudly do, while also letting a man accused by police of sexually assaulting a woman represent the AFL while awaiting his trial (except if you’re an unknown 18 yr old then you can be stood down). The hypocrisy is astounding.

 

[Aramis]

NoobPie BF Tiger can I just say, I am loving the debate....

 

[NoobPie]

Hold on... your asking me to be clearer when you’re the one who made the initial statement that you now claim I misinterpreted, which if I did it is because it wasn’t clear. We’re talking a legal matter so why would I be thinking you were writing in moral terms?

This all gets back to you and your lack of clarity. Be clearer next time.

I referenced age the first time in response to a bizarre comparison with a teacher being stood down for sexual assault...

Whaaat?

That is just a nonsense leap in logic

A teacher charged with sexual assault would be stood down.......so a footballer charged with sexual assault 5 years ago as an 18 year old should also be stood down

Jaaaarst nonsense

I referenced age the second time in response to the same fool who either disingenuously or otherwise in willful and convenient ignorance claimed that De Goey is on rape charges

This is an appalling post

Two "I believes" and a "as far as I am aware" to imply that a 23 year old DeGoey has been charged with rape as a 19 year old. And you were dead wrong

Are you ashamed?

Due to some really really warped psychological bent, in these exchanges, rather than like every other decent contributor here that were affronted by the willful stupidity and carelessness of the person claiming a footballer is like a teacher and sexual assault charges equate to rape, took umbrage at my mention of JDG's age in response to these.

And the whole subject of this thread is not directly the legal matter it self but the obligation on the AFL / Collingwood in their handling of the legal matter.

Just for the record, and only IMHO... De Goey’s age at the time of the alleged incident does not mitigate his alleged actions in any legal, moral or ethical sense.

Good for you. Everyone is "entitled" to their own moral / ethical framework or at least what they tell themselves. That is, there is no legal jurisdiction of what you personally think is right and wrong.

I would think that most reasonable people would expect higher standards of behaviour - all else being equal - from a 30 year old than a 19 year old. E.G Steele Sidebottom's crazy adventure was more "wrong" than if Isaac Quaynor had behaved in the same way.

 

[HairyO]

Would you rather be beaten within an inch of your life and put into an induced coma on life support or have someone grab your dick? Again, you simply cant draw conclusions based on a 'taste test' of the name of a charge.

Rape =/= sexual assault, they are different charges.



[1] Evidently you aren't very aware because you are wrong

[2] Incredible, baseless conclusion that is also wrong

Why do you feel the need to talk about things you clearly possess no expertise or knowledge in? You're just spouting nonsense.

Beating someone to an inch of their life wont see you charged with common assault.
It would be GBH or serious assault or even attempted murder.

That said de Goey was indecent assault not sexual assault ?

 

[Aramis]

Beating someone to an inch of their life wont see you charged with common assault.
It would be GBH or serious assault or even attempted murder.

That said de Goey was indecent assault not sexual assault ?

Assault was more talking about the category of offences rather than the specific charge of assault to illustrate to that numpty how you cant assess the seriousness of an offence without knowing the underlying circumstances and facts.

 

[HairyO]

Assault was more talking about the category of offences rather than the specific charge of assault to illustrate to that numpty how you cant assess the seriousness of an offence without knowing the underlying circumstances and facts.

The charge itself often gives away some of it. Though the ranges of penalties are usually quite broad.

 

[BF Tiger]

I referenced age the first time in response to a bizarre comparison with a teacher being stood down for sexual assault...



I referenced age the second time in response to the same fool who either disingenuously or otherwise in willful and convenient ignorance claimed that De Goey is on rape charges



Due to some really really warped psychological bent, in these exchanges, rather than like every other decent contributor here that were affronted by the willful stupidity and carelessness of the person claiming a footballer is like a teacher and sexual assault charges equate to rape, took umbrage at my mention of JDG's age in response to these.

And the whole subject of this thread is not directly the legal matter it self but the obligation on the AFL / Collingwood in their handling of the legal matter.





Good for you. Everyone is "entitled" to their own moral / ethical framework or at least what they tell themselves. That is, there is no legal jurisdiction of what you personally think is right and wrong.

I would think that most reasonable people would expect higher standards of behaviour - all else being equal - from a 30 year old than a 19 year old. E.G Steele Sidebottom's crazy adventure was more "wrong" than if Isaac Quaynor had behaved in the same way.

You're right. Everyone is allowed their own set of morals and ethics, and as such I'll use mine to look down on you after you've openly expressed yours.

With regard to Sidebottom getting drunk and comparing it to if Quaynor did the same thing... yeah, you might be able to argue that Sidebottom was more "wrong", and you might get a fair % of the population agreeing with you.

But we're actually talking about indecent assault and I think a fair % of the population would say that the age of the adult perpetrator does not mitigate the crime.

 

[NoobPie]

Beating someone to an inch of their life wont see you charged with common assault.
It would be GBH or serious assault or even attempted murder.

That said de Goey was indecent assault not sexual assault ?

"Indecent assault" was apparently repealed in Victoria in June 2015 ( after the alleged De Goey offence hence why he is being prosecuted under it) and (i'm not a lawyer so may be misinterpreting this) but under case law indecent assault was established to necessarily include:

"There must be a "sexual connotation" for an act to be considered indecent"

Criminal Charge Book

www.judicialcollege.vic.edu.au

So presumably the charge if the alleged offence had occurred after June 2015 would have been "sexual assault" under section 40 of the crimes act 1958.

Ultimately though the point is "indecent assault" or "sexual assault" can include anything from pinching a bum to the most aggressive assault of a sexual nature that did not include penetration.

 

[NoobPie]

You're right. Everyone is allowed their own set of morals and ethics, and as such I'll use mine to look down on you after you've openly expressed yours.

With regard to Sidebottom getting drunk and comparing it to if Quaynor did the same thing... yeah, you might be able to argue that Sidebottom was more "wrong", and you might get a fair % of the population agreeing with you.

But we're actually talking about indecent assault and I think a fair % of the population would say that the age of the adult perpetrator does not mitigate the crime.

While you are "looking down on me" how about taking them time to actually reflect on the reasoning underpinning your "own set of morals and ethics".

In a moral sense, to what extent, if any, would you judge an illegal and immoral act from an 18 year old more harshly than that of a 17 year old?

 

[DopeMaster]

Alright then, since you seem to know everything, what is DeGoey accused of?

You’ve revealed more about your character than intended in this thread.

Absolutely appalling display.

 

[Carringbush2010]

This isn’t about what the court should decide, it’s about what the AFL should do as his employer

The AFL is not his employer, the club is.

Your and others whole premise of stand him down til found innocent or guilty is not a value of the liberal democratic society we live in. And you only support it because of the 'optics'.

I agree, people like you will view this as a bad look for the game, this will not be the last time that the game will have a bad 'look'. That is a fact of life, get over it or don't up to you.

Fact of the matter is you or I or anyone else on this forum actually has no idea if he's guilty or what he is guilty of, the charge could be anything from a pinch on the bum to forceful assault, it could also be a disgruntled member of the public that DeGoey turned down or he could be guilty as hell of forceful assault. We don't know and no one should pretend they do.

IF our society went down the path that you wish it did, just think about the ramifications that would have on thousands of innocent people wrongly charged.

IF that is what you really want then the values of our society disagree with you and your minority.

 

[GCS in 11]

The AFL is not his employer, the club is.

Your and others whole premise of stand him down til found innocent or guilty is not a value of the liberal democratic society we live in. And you only support it because of the 'optics'.

I agree, people like you will view this as a bad look for the game, this will not be the last time that the game will have a bad 'look'. That is a fact of life, get over it or don't up to you.

Fact of the matter is you or I or anyone else on this forum actually has no idea if he's guilty or what he is guilty of, the charge could be anything from a pinch on the bum to forceful assault, it could also be a disgruntled member of the public that DeGoey turned down or he could be guilty as hell of forceful assault. We don't know and no one should pretend they do.

IF our society went down the path that you wish it did, just think about the ramifications that would have on thousands of innocent people wrongly charged.

IF that is what you really want then the values of our society disagree with you and your minority.

We’ve already “went down that path”. We did the other week when Elijah Taylor got stood down for his assault charges. Society will not stop functioning because an AFL player gets stood down with full pay whilst awaiting sexual assault charges. He’d still get all his employment rights and benefits, he’d just not be representing the AFL which is not an unreasonable position.

I don’t want to see anyone wrongly convicted and I very much believe in innocent until proven guilty. But again, all that means is the courts have to make sure you have committed the crime before they imprison/fine you. It does not and should not apply to any other decision a private organisation makes. I’d be fired on the spot if I was charged with sexual assault (not even stood down), that’s just how the world works already.

 

[Carringbush2010]

We’ve already “went down that path”. We did the other week when Elijah Taylor got stood down for his assault charges. Society will not stop functioning because an AFL player gets stood down with full pay whilst awaiting sexual assault charges. He’d still get all his employment rights and benefits, he’d just not be representing the AFL which is not an unreasonable position.

I don’t want to see anyone wrongly convicted and I very much believe in innocent until proven guilty. But again, all that means is the courts have to make sure you have committed the crime before they imprison/fine you. It does not and should not apply to any other decision a private organisation makes. I’d be fired on the spot if I was charged with sexual assault (not even stood down), that’s just how the world works already.

Yes you don't need to explain you're point of view, just because Taylor has been stood down by his employer does not mean it is the same situation as Degoey, on face value they look very different.

Obviously Syd view him as a damaging look to be in employ given the evidence surrounding that situation, the DeGoey situation looks very different doesn't it. Yet posters on here want Degoey stood down claiming the scenarios are same same and obviously they aren't

Regardless, you can boil it down and dissect any way you wish, but employers standing down employees on assumptions because of feels or looks is NOT reflective of the liberal democratic society we live in, certainly in the case of Degoey, the Taylor case I can understand - others will disagree with me on that.

Assuming guilt and applying disciplinary action based on it is popular with a noisy politically correct minority not the populace majority. That distinction is key to how our society functions.

 

[windyhill]

Just going on the football side,unbelievable comeback from the finger. Quite often though the second week is always a challenge.

Happens regularly

 

[Kappa]

We’ve already “went down that path”. We did the other week when Elijah Taylor got stood down for his assault charges. Society will not stop functioning because an AFL player gets stood down with full pay whilst awaiting sexual assault charges. He’d still get all his employment rights and benefits, he’d just not be representing the AFL which is not an unreasonable position.

I don’t want to see anyone wrongly convicted and I very much believe in innocent until proven guilty. But again, all that means is the courts have to make sure you have committed the crime before they imprison/fine you. It does not and should not apply to any other decision a private organisation makes. I’d be fired on the spot if I was charged with sexual assault (not even stood down), that’s just how the world works already.

You could sue your employer for huge amounts if they fire you and the court finds out you did nothing wrong.

 

[Lsta062]

This is exactly why I think there should be no action taken against De Goey by the AFL or Collingwood right now. We barely even know what he was accused of let alone what transpired and whether he’s guilty.

I say treat him as if he wasn’t charged for now given that a charge isn’t a judgement. Innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

This is exactly why I think there should be no action taken against De Goey by the AFL or Collingwood right now. We barely even know what he was accused of let alone what transpired and whether he’s guilty.

I say treat him as if he wasn’t charged for now given that a charge isn’t a judgement. Innocent until proven guilty.

But, but, 'me too'.

I would love it if Goo got off and sued them for defamation. He is entitled to the same legal protections as all Australian. I mean the world these people live in, if they could they'd allow public servants to arrest us.

 

[Lsta062]

But, but, 'me too'.

I would love it if Goo got off and sued them for defamation. He is entitled to the same legal protections as all Australian. I mean the world these people live in, if they could they'd allow public servants to arrest us.

It’s ridiculous what’s going on. Trial by the public and media. What ever happened to thinking the best of others and not accusing someone of something if it hasn’t been confirmed yet?

I’m not saying De Goey is innocent, but I’m sure that people here wouldn’t like it if they were falsely accused of ‘indecent assault’ and people wanted them to be fired from their job and are accusing them of being guilty. If he is innocent then that’s what’s going on now so people should put themselves in someone else’s shoes and understand that they are contributing to the toxic online/media culture driven by the “guilty before proven innocent” mindset.

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

It’s ridiculous what’s going on. Trial by the public and media. What ever happened to thinking the best of others and not accusing someone of something if it hasn’t been confirmed yet?

I’m not saying De Goey is innocent, but I’m sure that people here wouldn’t like it if they were falsely accused of ‘indecent assault’ and people wanted them to be fired from their job and are accusing them of being guilty. If he is innocent then that’s what’s going on now so people should put themselves in someone else’s shoes and understand that they are contributing to the toxic online/media culture driven by the “guilty before proven innocent” mindset.

Well we all remember chop sticks Martin which ended up being nothing despite the carry on.

 

[Brickwall]

‘indecent assault means 100 things could of just grabbed her arse........................

 

[PerthBoy86]

What are the details of the case? All I heard was he was accused on sexual assault. Actually thought he was suspended because of it, pending the verdict, so was a bit surprised when he returned.

 

[Anja_Nees]

What are the details of the case? All I heard was he was accused on sexual assault. Actually thought he was suspended because of it, pending the verdict, so was a bit surprised when he returned.

Heard it related to grabbing her knockers but not sure if that’s all.