What the heck? Convicted Child Killer Part of Essendon's Cheer Squad

[Down at K Park]

Collingwood have a kiddy fiddler that goes to training.
Whats worse?

Leave Eddie alone.

 

[Collingwoodity]

Funny that so many of the ‘justice warriors’ in this thread rail against so called ‘social justice warriors’, but really they’re so similar..
- keen on a bit of virtue signalling,
- happy to declare one of our important civilising institutions (in this case the legal system) a broken failure,
- completely unable to deal with nuance,
- hysterical.

Isn't this post exactly the same type of virtue-signalling you are mocking?

 

[Visions]

I'll post what I like champ. Not everything is black and white in the world, and the justice system seems to disagree with your argument.

Yeah. Derek Percy was never found guilty by the justice system either, he must have been a stand up citizen.

 

[The 747]

Yeah. Derek Percy was never found guilty by the justice system either, he must have been a stand up citizen.

Great example, thanks for sharing.

 

[Collingwoodity]

I doubt you'll find anyone more willing to troll Essendon than me on this site, but jeez.

There's a reason we have infanticide laws and if this poor woman can get some sort of foothold in society by doing this, then good.

The law is inherently flawed and prejudicial to the rights of an extant human being.

There was a law that prohibited woman from divorcing their husbands. That was outdated (if it ever was in date) and rightly changed. This should change also. Remember, the mother has the option of giving the children up - this protects both the children and the woman. Except she didn't do that. Of course, it is so sad and I am sure she regrets it every second of every day but the children are of utmost importance.

It's very similar to how some people say that women should not wear short skirts or go out late at night. That's victim blaming. This is too.

Post natal depression- anyone who has been lucky enough to have children would have seen the impact it has on even the most 'normal' woman- it recognises this is a legitimate issue- rather than in previous times women would have been considered 'crazy' and sent away. Babies are bloody hard work- no matter how much support you have.
It is not an excuse- yet an explanation as to how someone could do such a thing- they are not in their right mind.
It's far from perfect- yet is one of the few laws that provides any consideration of women.

It is a crime against a person. The notion that the fact that a group of individuals due to their unique circumstances should receive a different treatment is outdated. It is not optional to not beat a defenseless child.

It is 2021, I feel like woman's rights have progressed beyond the point where women are accountable for their own actions? This law seems ridiculously worded:

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 6
Infanticide
(1) If a woman carries out conduct that causes the death of her child in circumstances that would constitute murder and, at the time of carrying out the conduct, the balance of her mind was disturbed because of—

(a) her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to that child within the preceding 2 years; or

(b) a disorder consequent on her giving birth to that child within the preceding 2 years—

she is guilty of infanticide, and not of murder, and liable to level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum).

(2) On an indictment for murder, a woman found not guilty of murder may be found guilty of infanticide.

(3) Nothing in this Act affects the power of the jury on a charge of murder of a child to return a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment.

 

[FastLane]

The law is inherently flawed and prejudicial to the rights of an extant human being.

There was a law that prohibited woman from divorcing their husbands. That was outdated (if it ever was in date) and rightly changed. This should change also. Remember, the mother has the option of giving the children up - this protects both the children and the woman. Except she didn't do that. Of course, it is so sad and I am sure she regrets it every second of every day but the children are of utmost importance.

It's very similar to how some people say that women should not wear short skirts or go out late at night. That's victim blaming. This is too.



It is a crime against a person. The notion that the fact that a group of individuals due to their unique circumstances should receive a different treatment is outdated. It is not optional to not beat a defenseless child.

It is 2021, I feel like woman's rights have progressed beyond the point where women are accountable for their own actions? This law seems ridiculously worded:

CRIMES ACT 1958 - SECT 6
Infanticide
(1) If a woman carries out conduct that causes the death of her child in circumstances that would constitute murder and, at the time of carrying out the conduct, the balance of her mind was disturbed because of—

(a) her not having fully recovered from the effect of giving birth to that child within the preceding 2 years; or

(b) a disorder consequent on her giving birth to that child within the preceding 2 years—

she is guilty of infanticide, and not of murder, and liable to level 6 imprisonment (5 years maximum).

(2) On an indictment for murder, a woman found not guilty of murder may be found guilty of infanticide.

(3) Nothing in this Act affects the power of the jury on a charge of murder of a child to return a verdict of not guilty because of mental impairment.

I gather you've studied legal studies at school? And safe to say you are a man that has no children? I'm going out on a limb here and guessing you are single or divorced?

When considering the law in general favours men- spend a bit more time on google and you will see that sentences for men who kill women are generally much lower than man on man killings- in addition to the defence of provocation (Phil Clearly huge advocate- exceptional man) being initially brought in to protect women in violent relationships ending up being repealed due to men using it as a defence and you can't really argue that a law that considers evidenced based research around mother/child relationship is necessarily a BAD thing.

Children are 'people' too - yet are treated differently under law-on your reasoning children should be tried as adults.

As a final point- you say a woman should 'give up' her children- the point of this law is to consider that the woman's mind was incapable of acting 'normally'- thus it is not as simple as you attempt to explain.

 

[84859300]

When considering the law in general favours men-

Wait - What?

Your signature litterally reads - "I will be your father figure"

 

[Old Mildura Boy]

Collingwood have a kiddy fiddler that goes to training.
Whats worse?

Collingwood given they know about it and welcome him with open arms

 

[Dan]

It kinda makes me feel ill that some in here wanna give the benefit of the doubt to this individual.

Having a kid is a privilege and one of the biggest responsibilities an adult will ever intake in their life.........it's not a pot plant from Bunnings or a pair of jeans from your favourite shop.

seeya.

 

[Dan Moody]

Collingwood given they know about it and welcome him with open arms

Twice I've seen this posted and I admit I have absolutely no idea what it's about.
Can someone enlighten me?

 

[Collingwoodity]

I gather you've studied legal studies at school? And safe to say you are a man that has no children? I'm going out on a limb here and guessing you are single or divorced?

When considering the law in general favours men- spend a bit more time on google and you will see that sentences for men who kill women are generally much lower than man on man killings- in addition to the defence of provocation (Phil Clearly huge advocate- exceptional man) being initially brought in to protect women in violent relationships ending up being repealed due to men using it as a defence and you can't really argue that a law that considers evidenced based research around mother/child relationship is necessarily a BAD thing.

Children are 'people' too - yet are treated differently under law-on your reasoning children should be tried as adults.

As a final point- you say a woman should 'give up' her children- the point of this law is to consider that the woman's mind was incapable of acting 'normally'- thus it is not as simple as you attempt to explain.

I think that you have made a fair few incorrect assumptions about human biology and the law.

Remarkable that you have turned the commentary about criminal women into an anti-male discussion.

Provocation as you say is not a defence as it was abolished in Victoria in 2005 and it is now only one of many matters when determining the sentence of a guilty party.

A woman that kills a defenseless baby can be tried under murder and their circumstances can be taken into account at sentencing.

Your other point is about whether or not the mother of a child is capable of determining whether she should, on one hand, give up a child, or the other hand, kill the child. The whole purpose of the infantacide law, as you put it, is to consider the woman's circumstances, which is that they are not able to act normally and that they have a propensity to kill their child. Yet, with knowledge that a woman has an increased propensity to kill her child common enough to create a law, the mother apparently still remains incapable of giving the child up before she kills it. This is 2021 and there are so many support services and information freely available. It is embarrassing that there are people disingenuous enough to focus energy on protection of a murderer's rights over a rights of an innocent baby.

I mean, there are vegan protesters protesting the death and cruelty of animals which is apparently acceptable but outrage about the death of an innocent baby is not okay?

A defenseless baby should be sacrosanct at all costs.

 

[Jade]

I'm a father of 3 also, spaced 2 years apart. Yes there is the endless getting up 2 hours apart during the night and the crying and everything else that goes with being a parent.
Not once did I ever consider harming my children, nor did my wife. Yes we got angry, swore and yelled often but never considered laying a hand on them.
Is that what we do to people now that we are adults, if we don't like what they do we should become physically aggressive with them, permanently disable them or kill them?
That is what this woman did, she killed and maimed the most defenceless humans in our society. There is no defending what she has done and sadly she got away with murder.
I don't hope she someday resumes a normal life, I hope every waking hour is hell on earth for her and she lives through the torture of what she has done.

 

[Jade]

Twice I've seen this posted and I admit I have absolutely no idea what it's about.
Can someone enlighten me?

Yeah can’t remember the guys name off the top of my head, but bloke convicted of grooming a kid online for sex is a mainstay at your training.

Apparently he makes the players skin crawl too.

Not sure if the club has banned him (seeing kids go to training) - but that’s the gist of it.

 

[matthew_s]

Yeah can’t remember the guys name off the top of my head, but bloke convicted of grooming a kid online for sex is a mainstay at your training.

Apparently he makes the players skin crawl too.

Not sure if the club has banned him (seeing kids go to training) - but that’s the gist of it.

Status in Question - Sexual offenders attending AFL events

What was Paige Cardona doing at Collingwood training apart from booing the likes of Wells, Varcoe and Kirby?

www.bigfooty.com

 

[_Mike_]

'Passing a police, background check is not a requirement. All members of the Bomber Squad are required to pass a working with children check in order to participate in activities like banner making"

The Australian justice system focuses on restorative justice, not punitive measures such s putting every law breaker in jail for their crime, and will take into consideration the possibility of rehabilitation of the person at sentencing by the sentencing court. The mother was given a 12 month order and spared jail however the Essendon policy of not doing police checks falls on the shoulders of the club, however the working with children check SHOULD have flagged the crime against children.

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

Come on this is nothing compared to DeGoey pinching Qaynors ass.

 

[owen87]

'Passing a police, background check is not a requirement. All members of the Bomber Squad are required to pass a working with children check in order to participate in activities like banner making"

The Australian justice system focuses on restorative justice, not punitive measures such s putting every law breaker in jail for their crime, and will take into consideration the possibility of rehabilitation of the person at sentencing by the sentencing court. The mother was given a 12 month order and spared jail however the Essendon policy of not doing police checks falls on the shoulders of the club, however the working with children check SHOULD have flagged the crime against children.

https://files.workingwithchildren.vic.gov.au/2021-05/List%20of%20Offences_FEB2021.pdf#_ga=2.54025064.1315186856.1621230597-1993385395.1621230597

It's really bizarre that infanticide isn't considered a disqualifying crime for the purposes of a WWCC

 

[Black Panther]

Game Over!

No Cookies | Herald Sun

No Cookies

www.heraldsun.com.au