Photo scandal - we're next

[Yurj]

exactly - the girl was in a relationship with a player. How are we to know he did not send the photos to her during their relationship. The fault is with the pinhead players getting photographed or having a liason with a girl

How do we know that? Because NO ONE (other than posters kicking around script-writing scenarios) has ever claimed that he did.

Even if she wanted to rethink her defence and claim this now, it's just a bit too late. It's inconsistent with her central contention that she was the one who took the photos and who downloaded them to her own email account. Once that's disproven, there isn't any fallback position for her. And you'd have to wonder why she didn't go down that path if it were true given that it would probably have given her a defence to the proceeding.

So I guess we'll have to put this wonderful scenario in with the CIA plot to discredit the St Kilda FC. Hey, how do we know that the photos weren't photoshopped and the players were never in the photos at all? Wow, it's amazing how many irrelevant theories you could cook up if you don't worry about them being inconsistent with reality ...

 

[40yearBLUE]

Yuri, you argue your case well. However, I am not advocating that innocent people get punished because the guilty got away with it. What I am saying is I understand that the more cases that "appear" to favor the perpetrator the more people lose faith with the system and victims believe that making a complaint will only cause them more grief and not be of any use, the perpetrator has the entire system on their side. I am not saying this is always the case I am saying this is the appearance to some.

And who could blame them. As I pointed out to you, think back over the past few years at all the allegations and incidents and how many convictions resulted. Not a single one. Do you really think that every one of them was a frivolous charge? I understand that in our system, rightly, the accuser must prove the case against the accused and the accused does not have to prove their innocence and this goes a long way toward the results we have, but no-one can deny that there has been systematic tampering and prejudice against the victims and that I am sure that most victims dont even bother reporting their ordeal because they know the system is stacked against them and they have little to no chance of a fair hearing. So far. My hope is that this might one day change.

And I am also not saying that this case is a good example of anything other than it brought to light again how it seems there is a particular culture within our society, exemplified and amplified by the standards set by the AFL.

As a footnote, we could do worse than adopt a hybrid of our current system of jurisprudence and the French system where they dont have adversarial advocates but a neutral Magistrate that also acts as an investigator in a similar fashion to the way we handle Coronial inquests, perhaps this might mean that victims dont get demonised in court and their characters falsely assassinated in order to get the guitly off.

 

[mediumsizered]

He had a bloody lot to do with it ..according to Reiwoldt he asked Gilbert to delete the images and Gilbert stated he had deleted them ...to say he did nothing wrong is just plain ludicrous .....it seems you have a huge bias toward the players and against the girl involved.

The highlighted bit is the key for me.

The football community & that is clubs & supporters alike, are too inclined to put players on a pedestal & give them far more leeway in relation to their behaviour. On the flipside, the football community is very quick to condemn those who accuse AFL players of poor judgement/behaviour (even the thread on the Main Board referring to the latest alleged incident involving Brisbane Lions' players takes a pot shot at Mike Goldman & the model who was the victim of alleged poor behaviour by Brisbane Lions players).

As I have posted a few times on the Main Board, supporters & clubs need to stop defending AFL players when they have done the wrong thing, because this sends a message to the players that they are free to do what they like because of who they are.

 

[jono25]

30yr - what you are talking about is a civil legal system. The conviction rates in both systems are very similar, the only problem is the civil system has become highly politicised and public confidence in the system is much lower. One of those things that sounds good in theory but....

As for your calls to make the system more victim friendly, several states in the USA did this with various shield laws etc in the mid to late 90s. Conviction rates went from 30% to 80% but instances of the wronfully accused being jailed went up by 400%. They have now reversed the laws.

When will people understand that when someone is allegedly r*ped there is no easy way to deal with the issue - if the justice system has one side over the other being happy then it is not impartial. Usually both sides are strained because it is a difficult issue. How people can expect a system to take something so complex and spit out a resolution that is fair to all without hurting the parties is beyond me. In life some things are hard.

As for 30yr's contention that because girls who cry rape aren't sued for making false accusations means there must be something to it - I have rarerly heard such a stupid statement by someone who professes to have such wisdom. It is impossible to prove defamation based on a police report subsequently reported in the press. It is also very difficult to pursue a civil claim based on similar circumstances. The courts generally don't allow such claims as a matter of public policy unless the actions of the accused are so outrageous (eg give interviews claiming rape then publically admit they lied) because such actions deter real victims from coming forward. I found bluepride's views of women abhorent - as somebody who is 30 years older and should know better, I find your views oustanding and if possible, more repugnant. I suggest you detract your statement.

 

[jono25]

The highlighted bit is the key for me.

The football community & that is clubs & supporters alike, are too inclined to put players on a pedestal & give them far more leeway in relation to their behaviour. On the flipside, the football community is very quick to condemn those who accuse AFL players of poor judgement/behaviour (even the thread on the Main Board referring to the latest alleged incident involving Brisbane Lions' players takes a pot shot at Mike Goldman & the model who was the victim of alleged poor behaviour by Brisbane Lions players).

As I have posted a few times on the Main Board, supporters & clubs need to stop defending AFL players when they have done the wrong thing, because this sends a message to the players that they are free to do what they like because of who they are.

Were you in the restraunt? Have you spoken to people who were there? Or are you just basing your conclusion on a news paper report? Dangerous stuff - especially for a mod.

 

[40yearBLUE]

30yr - what you are talking about is a civil legal system. The conviction rates in both systems are very similar, the only problem is the civil system has become highly politicised and public confidence in the system is much lower. One of those things that sounds good in theory but....

As for your calls to make the system more victim friendly, several states in the USA did this with various shield laws etc in the mid to late 90s. Conviction rates went from 30% to 80% but instances of the wronfully accused being jailed went up by 400%. They have now reversed the laws.

When will people understand that when someone is allegedly r*ped there is no easy way to deal with the issue - if the justice system has one side over the other being happy then it is not impartial. Usually both sides are strained because it is a difficult issue. How people can expect a system to take something so complex and spit out a resolution that is fair to all without hurting the parties is beyond me. In life some things are hard.

As for 30yr's contention that because girls who cry rape aren't sued for making false accusations means there must be something to it - I have rarerly heard such a stupid statement by someone who professes to have such wisdom. It is impossible to prove defamation based on a police report subsequently reported in the press. It is also very difficult to pursue a civil claim based on similar circumstances. The courts generally don't allow such claims as a matter of public policy unless the actions of the accused are so outrageous (eg give interviews claiming rape then publically admit they lied) because such actions deter real victims from coming forward. I found bluepride's views of women abhorent - as somebody who is 30 years older and should know better, I find your views oustanding and if possible, more repugnant. I suggest you detract your statement.

Yes no easy way to deal with it, so the way we deal with it is to bury our heads in the sand, further victimize the victim in order to discourage other victims from coming forward and hope like hell the perpetrators decide not to continue to perpetrate. Yep that'll fix the problem.

As for your contentions as to how stupid my suggestions are, first of all you belie your true intelligence level with this claim. You see when there is a serious and seemingly unresolvable issue you would do your self more justice to simply disagree with the others contention than to attempt to belittle them with such language. But then, its easy to pretend false intelligence on here, but you soon get found out.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Oh and Jono, just for the record, I have never professed to know or understand all aspects of anything let alone the law, my uni study was ethics and philosophy and a little psych (which I did not enjoy at all) and I am not yet finsihed, ergo, I dont yet have a degree. But I like to think I practice something which has a funny title given is rarity. Common Sense. And I am more than happy to hear of pitfalls in my thinking.

However even the most cursory of internet research reveals that you dont have the first clue what you are talking about, pretend to with such big words like shield law and quoting percentages and the like. Here is a wikipedia paragraph taken from a google search of the term shield law in rape cases, again not that this is the ultimate source of wisdom but its a nice start. (because if you google just shield law it relates to protection of journalist from prosecution in whistle blower type situations that have nothing to do with sexual assault).

"Identification of alleged rape victims by media outlets
As a matter of courtesy, most newspapers and broadcast media in the United States do not disclose the name of an alleged rape victim during the trial, and if the alleged rapist is convicted, most will continue to not identify the victim. If the case is dropped or the alleged rapist is acquitted, most media will no longer shield the name of the victim.[dubious – discuss] This practice was probably related to laws in some states which made it a crime to publicly reveal the name of the victim in a rape case. When such laws were challenged in court, they were routinely struck down as unconstitutional.[4]Z"

So it would seem that the laws were reversed because they were unconstitutional not because of the increase in the rate of false convictions. Of course this is just conjecture because it would be most likely that neither you nor I really knows. The difference is I am not pretending.

To be fair, there are 2 understandings of the term shield law in rape cases, one is the protection of the identity of victims the other the protection of victims from having their past sexual behavior questioned in court. But this aspect of shield law is still very much in practice, so not sure exactly what you think you know and dont know. It would seem not much.

 

[jono25]

Oh dear and you use Wikipedia to talk about one part of a rape shield law. There was a lot more to the laws I was referring to than simply not naming the victim - the detail that could be introduced in court about their sex life (i.e. questions asked in cross), how and when they could be cross examined, details of photographs etc. If you understood the US legal system you would know it is very common for one part of a law to be overturned by the courts, but others to survive.

As you say you clearly have no degree and no knowledge of the law. Whilst being a corporate/energy and resources lawyer, at uni I was the research bitch for one of the pre-eminent criminal law professors in Australia and she specialised in sentencing law, with a specific focus on rape cases. I also did a subject in it as part of my masters - so whilst no expert, I know a bit more than to quote Wikipedia. I also interviewed several Queensland judges for one of her books on the subject and have read numerous scholarly articles etc. I also had a very close friend who was r*ped and went through the trauma of the legal system to have the bloke sentenced to 3 years wholly suspended.

Oh and I wasn't saying put your head in the sand at all - the system can always be improved. But coming at it from one angle isn't the way to go. Again you can't refute the point I made, about your claim having no merit because to prosecute such an action is almost impossible and against public policy, so you resort to wikipedia to deflect your stupidity.

You say you are intelligent yet all you have studied (and not completed) is philosophy - which is a nothing degree for people lacking intelligence and drive to achieve in a specific area. The entrance scores may have been different back in your day but now you can get into such degrees with an OP of 14 (below average on a 1-25 system). Not choosing the best of the bunch are they!

I like the quote about studying philosophy (can't remember its source) - "just an excuse to talk about one's self for several years".

 

[jono25]

Yes no easy way to deal with it, so the way we deal with it is to bury our heads in the sand, further victimize the victim in order to discourage other victims from coming forward and hope like hell the perpetrators decide not to continue to perpetrate. Yep that'll fix the problem.

As for your contentions as to how stupid my suggestions are, first of all you belie your true intelligence level with this claim. You see when there is a serious and seemingly unresolvable issue you would do your self more justice to simply disagree with the others contention than to attempt to belittle them with such language. But then, its easy to pretend false intelligence on here, but you soon get found out.

The true stupidity of this statement is that you claimed there must be something to several reported rape reports involving footballers that went away without charges being brought but because the alleged rapists did not pursue the supposed victim, there must be a basis to the allegations. You ignore the fact that courts do not allow such claims, except in very specific circumstances, because of the public policy implications of stopping victims from coming forward.

So on the one hand you criticise the system for acting in a manner that stops victims coming forward, on the other you exhibit a stereotypical response that courts restrain for the public policy objective of ensuring rape victims will come forward.

Hmmm.

Seen as you seem to be very interested in this area - why don't you use your supposed intelligence to actually finish a law degree. Tell me what State you are in and I will happily find out which is the best university for you to attend and put you in touch with the criminalist specialist at that university. You can then study these issues in all their complexity, rather than quoting sources like wikipedia and taking a broad brush approach to what is a very complex issue. Certainly far too complex to be condensed to a blog discussion without inherent prejudices running riot.

I am also happy to let you borrow some old text books and send you my file of journal articles on the subject. Again there are many with far more knowledge on the subject than myself (not my specialty) but as you appear to be incredibly ignorant it would be good to assist your education. PM me if you would like assistance.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Oh beautiful stuff. Are you sure you are not BluePride lying about different stuff? Cos all the professionals I know dont call their adversaries stupid or even their ideas no matter how much they disagree with them. As I said just a cursory glance at research from as humble a source as wikipedia has told me more about your understanding of the subject than I ever need to know. A blowhard that tries to bluster his opponent rather than a deep thinker. And as for studying philosophy, I started it in semi retirement because of an interest in ethics, not because I wanted to specialize in anything. What a self righteous and pompous ass you are. Like I said, another pantsonfire big noter not satisfied with themselves so they find solace in trying to belittle others or lie about their achievements. Get help son.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Murderers are not emboldened to murder because someone else got away with it, nor are they discouraged from murdering because so many get penalized. The 2 are not mutually exclusive. Rape victims would not be discouraged from reporting rapes because those found to falsly report rape are caught out and prosecuted or sued. They are discouraged because the system is stacked against them from the start. There is a preconception that they somehow contributed, no matter what the circumstances of their case. And ever increasing instances of perpetrators facing no sanction only strengthens their disillusion and reluctance. And who can blame them. As MSR has stated we have an almost instinctive reaction toward complainants if the alleged is an elite sportsman and even more so if they are champions for our teams as if the loss of a great player is somehow worse than getting a scumbag off our streets.

 

[blue gunslinger]

Oh beautiful stuff. Are you sure you are not BluePride lying about different stuff? Cos all the professionals I know dont call their adversaries stupid or even their ideas no matter how much they disagree with them. As I said just a cursory glance at research from as humble a source as wikipedia has told me more about your understanding of the subject than I ever need to know. A blowhard that tries to bluster his opponent rather than a deep thinker. And as for studying philosophy, I started it in semi retirement because of an interest in ethics, not because I wanted to specialize in anything. What a self righteous and pompous ass you are. Like I said, another pantsonfire big noter not satisfied with themselves so they find solace in trying to belittle others or lie about their achievements. Get help son.

you should see the pissing contests when a group of pharmacists get together: bunch of wonkers the lot of em (very smart idiots mostly)

 

[HARKER]

I must say I'm enjoying these discussions here and not so much for the content of what is being discussed, but for the insights into some of you.

As I've said before the "big ticket" items can bring out the best or the worst in us, and I must say that I have been surprised at some of the "outings" of some on this board here, through this debate.

Interesting and thank you.

 

[Blues_Man]

If you've been forced to throw up Gilbert vs Riewoldt issues to scandalise Gilbert v J issues, you're getting desperate.

I'm sure any issues that Riewoldt has with Gilbert will henceforth be dealt with behind closed doors and Riewoldt doesn't need you to fight for his interests. I'm sure we are all capable of dealing with separate issues separately aren't we?

Beep beep beep ...the sound of a poster backing away from his ludicrous and innacurate statement . It appears you are a saints poster in hiding.

 

[jono25]

30yr I am very happy to PM you my contact details, including my name etc. You can then check with the Queensland Law Society to see my professional qualifications and experience.

Again you have been shown up to be someone with ingrained prejudices and an inability to separate your prejudices from a mature discussion of a complex issue. Your approach seems to be to call whoever shows you up a liar and say you think they are big noting themselves etc.

Your statement that a rape victim seeing a girl charged for a false claim on the news would not deter a real victim from reporting is astounding and shows your utter ignorance of this subject. I suggest you go and try to talk to workers at a rape crisis centre and they will tell you the following:

1. most rape victims instinctively blame themselves - if I didn't go out this wouldn't have happened etc

2. most rape victims become depressed and emotional and don't think rationally

3. the large majority of rape victims do not report the rape because they are worried they won't be believed.

I suggest you stop speaking because all you are showing is your absolute ignorance of this subject. As I said go take your statements to a rape crisis centre and see how you go.

 

[Claypigeon]

How about we start with a basic proposition: if someone makes allegations about someone else, suggesting criminality or unethical behaviour, we should assume innocence unless the allegations are proved (and tweets and repetition of allegations in the media do not constitute proof IMO).

Accepting what she says at face value and condemning those who don't for oppressing a poor victim is ridiculous. The release of the photos has nothing to do with anything she alleges against Gilbert. On her own account, Gilbert's only role was that his computer was used to pass her own photos from her camera to her email account. And on Gilbert's version, again he has nothing to do with it save for being the victim of theft.

Sure and both sides deserve this. .. The majority in the public seem to be going after her incl. death threats (which is just one of the many reasons victims withdraw charges) otherwise known as lynch mob justice. .. No one here is saying what she did was right. .. but that doesn't mean we have any right to condemn her and just assume that the other party hasn't done anything wrong. .. and this still doesn't address the possible underlying issues in male dominated sports that we are discussing as separate but related to the current case. ..

 

[blue gunslinger]

30yr I am very happy to PM you my contact details, including my name etc. You can then check with the Queensland Law Society to see my professional qualifications and experience.

Again you have been shown up to be someone with ingrained prejudices and an inability to separate your prejudices from a mature discussion of a complex issue. Your approach seems to be to call whoever shows you up a liar and say you think they are big noting themselves etc.

Your statement that a rape victim seeing a girl charged for a false claim on the news would not deter a real victim from reporting is astounding and shows your utter ignorance of this subject. I suggest you go and try to talk to workers at a rape crisis centre and they will tell you the following:

1. most rape victims instinctively blame themselves - if I didn't go out this wouldn't have happened etc

2. most rape victims become depressed and emotional and don't think rationally

3. the large majority of rape victims do not report the rape because they are worried they won't be believed.

I suggest you stop speaking because all you are showing is your absolute ignorance of this subject. As I said go take your statements to a rape crisis centre and see how you go.

Was photo girl calling rape or just scorned?
Regarless a grown man should be able to dip his which elsewhere. It may have been legally OK but morally wrong

 

[40yearBLUE]

30yr I am very happy to PM you my contact details, including my name etc. You can then check with the Queensland Law Society to see my professional qualifications and experience.

Again you have been shown up to be someone with ingrained prejudices and an inability to separate your prejudices from a mature discussion of a complex issue. Your approach seems to be to call whoever shows you up a liar and say you think they are big noting themselves etc.

Your statement that a rape victim seeing a girl charged for a false claim on the news would not deter a real victim from reporting is astounding and shows your utter ignorance of this subject. I suggest you go and try to talk to workers at a rape crisis centre and they will tell you the following:

1. most rape victims instinctively blame themselves - if I didn't go out this wouldn't have happened etc

2. most rape victims become depressed and emotional and don't think rationally

3. the large majority of rape victims do not report the rape because they are worried they won't be believed.

I suggest you stop speaking because all you are showing is your absolute ignorance of this subject. As I said go take your statements to a rape crisis centre and see how you go.

Ignoring all your bluster and ingenuous offers lets examine the substance.

First of course girls being pursued in the current climate would dissuade girls from feeling they are safe in our system, because it has so poorly dealt with this issue in the past. Who can blame them for that. It is one of the standard defenses attack the accuser. But no fair minded person in an equal and fair system would object to those that are genuine false accuser of being punished. But because everyone is first thought to be a false accuser then of course they see anyone that is actually a false accuser being pursued as being proof of a broken system they are reluctant.

Most rape victims blame themselves because they have been conditioned to do so. If we had a system of equality they would not find this to be their go to reasoning. They do so because conditioning from past exposure, usually through the media has told them they "must" be somehow to blame especially if the attacker is an elite sportsmen, who because of their playing prowess must somehow also be beyond reproach.

I wanted to ignore your second comment about a girls "hysteria" but it is symbolic of the problem. Most traumatized go through a series of emotions. But by the very term hysteria they have again been labeled by a paternal and misogynistic system to believe that somehow the emotions they feel are due to their gender rather than their experience and trauma. To suggest that someone that has experienced trauma is incapable of rationale is well, nuff said.

As to point 3, nice of you to argue my case for me. Exactly. They dont believe they will be believed because of the common experience we all have of such things, they are not believed, they are vilified and their characters are assassinated in order to get the guilty off.

 

[Yurj]

So a 23 year old is much too old for an 18 year old is he? Amazing. Because Gilbert was about 23.5 when he met her at the Sydney nightclub and he says she told him she was 18.

Maybe you could provide some sort of table for us to make it easy. Put the female's apparent age on the left and the maximum appropriate age of a male sexual partner (from the moral perspective) on the right. And seeing that the maximum age of the male is capable of objective determination, maybe that could be expressed in years, months and days as well. Like, it's not as though there'd be varying opinions about what's appropriate in the community, is it?

Interesting that Hinch apparently admitted that he'd had sex with a 15 year old lingerie model when he was in his 30s, thinking she was 25. But he still took time out to slam Gilbert for his behaviour. Seems the whole issue is a bit of a moveable feast.

 

[Claypigeon]

30yr I am very happy to PM you my contact details, including my name etc. You can then check with the Queensland Law Society to see my professional qualifications and experience.

Again you have been shown up to be someone with ingrained prejudices and an inability to separate your prejudices from a mature discussion of a complex issue. Your approach seems to be to call whoever shows you up a liar and say you think they are big noting themselves etc.

Your statement that a rape victim seeing a girl charged for a false claim on the news would not deter a real victim from reporting is astounding and shows your utter ignorance of this subject. I suggest you go and try to talk to workers at a rape crisis centre and they will tell you the following:

1. most rape victims instinctively blame themselves - if I didn't go out this wouldn't have happened etc

2. most rape victims become depressed and emotional and don't think rationally

3. the large majority of rape victims do not report the rape because they are worried they won't be believed.

I suggest you stop speaking because all you are showing is your absolute ignorance of this subject. As I said go take your statements to a rape crisis centre and see how you go.

And you show your ignorance or at least a lack of understanding in thinking those 3 statements are not affected by victim blaming, death threats and a culture of protecting high profile people is ludicrous. ..

1. This is true. .. but when society goes after the victim for the mistakes they made that lead to them becoming a victim, this strengthens the victims inability to understand that they are a victim and not to truly to blame

2. again true. .. and they tend to do stupid things that make them look inconsistent with been a victim

3. Also true. .. Society again assists this when Police show obvious bias, media turns on the victim, victims are sent death threats, victims are treated like perpetrators. ..

Its never black and white and what I said above is not always true but to discount it as having an affect is to not understand culture, societal pressures and upbringing as having an affect on reactions by victims and perpetrators. .. You might be caught up in the law side but I was brought up to look at these things from a social and ethical point of view and I can empathise (to a point) with the victims which you are showing that you are unable to do, without bias. .. I don't throw logic out the window but I don't define everything logically either. ..

If you cannot see that society too often takes the side of the celebrity (not always tho) and this leads to people thinking they are above the law and gives others the belief that the system is floored (constant reports of police bias; hush money; bribes; power imbalances in the media and many others) then I think you should take the eye patch off. ..

Note: This doesn't mean I automatically side with the alleged victims, it just allows me to be more subjective. .. however there is an obvious imbalance here so I will err toward the opposite side to the imbalance in order to compensate. ..

 

[bluepride]

Your statement that a rape victim seeing a girl charged for a false claim on the news would not deter a real victim from reporting is astounding and shows your utter ignorance of this subject.

One of the hardest things to prove in court, and he wants to make it harder for them.

 

[blue gunslinger]

So a 23 year old is much too old for an 18 year old is he? Amazing. Because Gilbert wasn't yet 24 at the relevant time and he says she told him she was 18.

Maybe you could provide some sort of table for us to make it easy. Put the female's apparent age on the left and the maximum appropriate age of a male sexual partner (from the moral perspective) on the right. And seeing that the maximum age of the male is capable of objective determination, maybe that could be expressed in years, months and days as well. Like, it's not as though there'd be varying opinions about what's appropriate in the community, is it?

Interesting that Hinch apparently admitted that he'd had sex with a 15 year old lingerie model when he was in his 30s, thinking she was 25. But he still took time out to slam Gilbert for his behaviour. Seems the whole issue is a bit of a moveable feast.

How old are you?
If you are 24 or 35 you look at a 17/18yo and you know she is too young regardless of what she says. It is called thinking with your brain. If he was 18 that would have made her 11- you cool with that? A 24 yo footy player should be able to pull a 20+ girl and not have to make the choice of is she 16 or 18.
Stop trying to make this more than it is. Somebody offered me an extra plate of pavlova yesterday. It looked yummy and I know I could have squeezed it in but I knew it was wrong. I made a big call: I said NO

 

[Claypigeon]

How old are you?
If you are 24 or 35 you look at a 17/18yo and you know she is too young regardless of what she says. It is called thinking with your brain. If he was 18 that would have made her 11- you cool with that? A 24 yo footy player should be able to pull a 20+ girl and not have to make the choice of is she 16 or 18.
Stop trying to make this more than it is. Somebody offered me an extra plate of pavlova yesterday. It looked yummy and I know I could have squeezed it in but I knew it was wrong. I made a big call: I said NO

Throw in that in order to avoid these issues the AFL like other male dominated sporting bodies are supposed to be 'educating' the players to avoid these situation then yes, they should know better. ..

 

[blue gunslinger]

One of the hardest things to prove in court, and he wants to make it harder for them.

hey bluepride - one of your threads in the blueroom has been bumped and we want an update

 

[bluepride]

hey bluepride - one of your threads in the blueroom has been bumped and we want an update

I am on my iPhone so I have to open a new page, which one is it?