Club condemns Adelaide Crows player for allegedly sharing an image of a woman without permission

[Southerntakeover]

Which has no bearing on whether the thief committed a crime.

 

[Cleric]

If the photo had of been of a sexual nature the player would have been fined and suspended by now.

 

[skam85]

If the photo had of been of a sexual nature the player would have been fined and suspended by now.

Or not selected in Rd 1 despite being in better pre-season form than a player that plays the same position.

 

[skam85]

Remember the photos of ringworm and I think Dal Santo with their ***** out?

And Nick Riewoldt too - yet Kath Loughnan still went there!

 

[Cleric]

Or not selected in Rd 1 despite being in better pre-season form than a player that plays the same position.

Nah, if it was something such as sending photos of a woman in a sexual way, it would be a massive deal. It's a criminal offense, with penalties of up to a $10,000 fine and or two years in jail.
With the atmosphere around respect towards woman, revenge pr0n etc, if this was anyway sexual the club, the AFL and the police would be taking a far bigger role in publicly smashing him, be that sanction wise, or in the media.

Does anyone here really think if a player sent a nude photo of a woman he knew to another player without her permission, the AFL wouldn't be suspending him for 6 months? Really?

I have little doubt that it wasn't a nude photo at this point.

 

[skam85]

Nah, if it was something such as sending photos of a woman in a sexual way, it would be a massive deal. It's a criminal offense, with penalties of up to a $10,000 fine and or two years in jail.
With the atmosphere around respect towards woman, revenge pr0n etc, if this was anyway sexual the club, the AFL and the police would be taking a far bigger role in publicly smashing him, be that sanction wise, or in the media.

Does anyone here really think if a player sent a nude photo of a woman he knew to another player without her permission, the AFL wouldn't be suspending him for 6 months? Really?

I have little doubt that it wasn't a nude photo at this point.

Sexual doesn't necessarily mean nude

 

[BRL121]

Nah, if it was something such as sending photos of a woman in a sexual way, it would be a massive deal. It's a criminal offense, with penalties of up to a $10,000 fine and or two years in jail.
With the atmosphere around respect towards woman, revenge pr0n etc, if this was anyway sexual the club, the AFL and the police would be taking a far bigger role in publicly smashing him, be that sanction wise, or in the media.

Does anyone here really think if a player sent a nude photo of a woman he knew to another player without her permission, the AFL wouldn't be suspending him for 6 months? Really?

I have little doubt that it wasn't a nude photo at this point.

You're pretty persistent, I'll give you that.
However, I wouldn't think that some one would be reported to police for sharing someone's fully-clothed innocuous photo.
That would not make any sense.

 

[skam85]

There's only been one or two comments similar but people are really failing to factor in the "what if she just didn't actually care that much that someone else saw her cheeky picture". And the media are only finding out about this 4mths later somehow.

Not saying it's definitely the case but it's a real possibility.

 

[Samcro24]

There's only been one or two comments similar but people are really failing to factor in the "what if she just didn't actually care that much that someone else saw her cheeky picture". And the media are only finding out about this 4mths later somehow.

Not saying it's definitely the case but it's a real possibility.

Someone reported it to police

 

[skam85]

Someone reported it to police

Probably McLure or Kane were tipped off and jumped on and did an online report.

Then they talked to her and she goes "pfft? I don't care that * ***** saw my junk, I'm proud of it!"

*sarcasm

 

[cleanhands]

Sexual doesn't necessarily mean nude

I want nudes

 

[crowcaine]

Saw some thinking it was potentially Murray and McHenry.

Haven’t read through every posts but thought maybe Pedlar and Rowey? They live together and remember listening/watching another player interview where they mentioned lots of stuff happens at that house.

 

[Soggy2112]

Nah, if it was something such as sending photos of a woman in a sexual way, it would be a massive deal. It's a criminal offense, with penalties of up to a $10,000 fine and or two years in jail.
With the atmosphere around respect towards woman, revenge pr0n etc, if this was anyway sexual the club, the AFL and the police would be taking a far bigger role in publicly smashing him, be that sanction wise, or in the media.

Does anyone here really think if a player sent a nude photo of a woman he knew to another player without her permission, the AFL wouldn't be suspending him for 6 months? Really?

I have little doubt that it wasn't a nude photo at this point.

“After speaking with the victim, she has indicated she does not wish to pursue the matter any further and the matter has been filed,” police said.

The victim decided not to take the matter any further. I don’t know her motivation, however it is very common in cases of sexual assault/harassment that victims often don’t follow through with charges because it can be a gruelling and in some cases traumatic experience. This would probably be amplified by the fact that the perpetrator has a public profile.

Keeping the player’s identity confidential would be as much about protecting her identity as anything else.

You can’t assume that just because the player hasn’t been found guilty or sentenced for anything that it proves that nothing happened. In fact, the club’s statement more or less acknowledges that the player has done it.

 

[Cleric]

“After speaking with the victim, she has indicated she does not wish to pursue the matter any further and the matter has been filed,” police said.

The victim decided not to take the matter any further. I don’t know her motivation, however it is very common in cases of sexual assault/harassment that victims often don’t follow through with charges because it can be a gruelling and in some cases traumatic experience. This would probably be amplified by the fact that the perpetrator has a public profile.

Keeping the player’s identity confidential would be as much about protecting her identity as anything else.

You can’t assume that just because the player hasn’t been found guilty or sentenced for anything that it proves that nothing happened. In fact, the club’s statement more or less acknowledges that the player has done it.

That doesn't mean the AFL wouldn't take drastic action against him.
The media would have mentioned it if it was a nude picture, which they haven't.
You can almost guarantee that it wasn't a nude otherwise it would have come down harder on him in today's landscape.

 

[Soggy2112]

That doesn't mean the AFL wouldn't take drastic action against him.
The media would have mentioned it if it was a nude picture, which they haven't.
You can almost guarantee that it wasn't a nude otherwise it would have come down harder on him in today's landscape.

A) The AFL loves to sweep things under the carpet, they will take any opportunity to keep something private and in house.

B) If a victim had asked for the matter to not be taken any further, then it would not be appropriate for the AFL to publicly sanction a player, as this would draw significant media attention to the issue, which again, was clearly against the victim’s wishes.

 

[Crow till I die]

Sexual doesn't necessarily mean nude

how about this one

 

[BRL121]

how about this one
View attachment 2326152

That's definitely punishable.

 

[Crow till I die]

That's definitely punishable.

I hear she won 'Mrs Alberton beauty contest'

Edit. I just noticed the local bike in the background in that photo too..what a real treat

 

[MarcusP2]

Poor analogy.

If the person barely met ypu and handed the keys to the car to you, would the judge call you a**** wit when they drove off with your car?

Narrator: the judge called them a ****wit.

I honestly do not know why the simps and white knights have such a comprehesion issue with this.

Is the person who shared it a shit person, yep he is, no doubt on that.

Would this have not happened if the original person didn’t send the photo? You know what, I think it wouldn’t have.

There is an inherent risk with sharing a nude photo with someone you barely know, by sharing it, you are taking that risk.

If I don’t want to get done for speeding…I don’t speed. It can’t be this hard for people to understand but apparently they go to the lengths of suggesting a crime may be committed by an Indonesian government official to base an argument.

Don’t want a nude photo of you being shared, don’t ****ing send one and if you do…Johnny swinging dick that you thought was cute, might turn out to be a campaigner. It is a risk.

Can’t wait for some of you ****ers to go to the casino “ I put my money on red in good faith and it came up black…and they didn’t give me a second chance, they just took my money”.

There is a risk sending a nude photo, just because “ everyone does it” does not stop it being a risk.

Yeah, the risk is that some dumb f*** that you trusted shares it with his dumb f*** mates.

The law is designed to disincentivise that sort of dumb f*** behaviour.

If you were having a video chat with your partner, decided to show her the goods, and she suddenly rotates the phone and says 'btw Sheila's here, check out his old fella Sheila!' who's in the wrong? You didn't consent either way.

 

[cmndstab]

Poor analogy.

If the person barely met ypu and handed the keys to the car to you, would the judge call you a**** wit when they drove off with your car?

Narrator: the judge called them a ****wit.

I honestly do not know why the simps and white knights have such a comprehesion issue with this.

Is the person who shared it a shit person, yep he is, no doubt on that.

Would this have not happened if the original person didn’t send the photo? You know what, I think it wouldn’t have.

Analogies in general are poor for these kinds of situations. People aren't cars, and having your explicit images shared without your consent is not equivalent to someone driving off with your car.

But if we are going to insist on this analogy, it's not about you handing the keys to someone you've barely met and then watching them drive off. It's more akin to having a relationship with someone, allowing them to have a spare key for your car, and then finding out later they let someone else drive your car.

The problem with saying "it wouldn't happen if you didn't send the photo" is that you can make that argument about anything. Don't want to get murdered by a stranger? Don't leave your house. Don't want to get mowed down by a car? Never cross the street.

There is nothing inherently wrong with sharing an explicit image of yourself with a consenting partner. There is something inherently wrong with that partner then sharing your image without your consent. If there is blame to be apportioned here, it should go to the person who actually did something wrong.

 

[jamesclean]

Analogies in general are poor for these kinds of situations. People aren't cars, and having your explicit images shared without your consent is not equivalent to someone driving off with your car.

But if we are going to insist on this analogy, it's not about you handing the keys to someone you've barely met and then watching them drive off. It's more akin to having a relationship with someone, allowing them to have a spare key for your car, and then finding out later they let someone else drive your car.

The problem with saying "it wouldn't happen if you didn't send the photo" is that you can make that argument about anything. Don't want to get murdered by a stranger? Don't leave your house. Don't want to get mowed down by a car? Never cross the street.

There is nothing inherently wrong with sharing an explicit image with someone. There is something inherently wrong with someone then sharing that image without your consent. If there is blame to be apportioned here, it should go to the person who actually did something wrong.

bro I don't want a parking fine so I took off my windscreen wipers

 

[skam85]

We delisted Gollant, McHenry, Parnell and Hamill last season

go forth super sleuths

 

[jo172]

As distasteful as the underlying conduct is it's pleasing that the Club has learned how to manage these things in-house without unnecessarily shooting itself in the foot or creating an ungainly public spectacle.

Balme effect?

 

[cmndstab]

As distasteful as the underlying conduct is it's pleasing that the Club has learned how to manage these things in-house without unnecessarily shooting itself in the foot or creating an ungainly public spectacle.

Balme effect?

Seems like exactly the kind of thing that would have been directed his way.

 

[skam85]

I agree but didn't Balme start after January?