Photo scandal - we're next

[Dramoth]

a lot of young people who think they know it all grow and realize they know nothing at all

Some of them even manage to get through their short lives knowing nothing at all and reveling in their ignorance.

They usually have short eventful lives culminating in a Darwin award

 

[The Exorcist]

Thanks jono - didn't realise ADR was a pre-litigation requirement. I assume that the purpose of attempting mediation as a pre-litigation requirement is to show a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute and avoid the need for litigation.

What happens if an independent mediator deems that an appropriate outcome is for the girl to to stop posting any further photos, and hand over and delete any copies of the photos, and she agrees to comply with all these requirements - would this limit the ability of StKilda to litigate?. Otherwise the mediation process would appear to be a farce.

I can see why StKilda (and the AFL) would want to make of an example of her and deter others, but as you point out she has no income.

PS: I still think Gilbert is not squeeky clean if he had photos of Riewoldt without his permission.

The mediator's job is to provide the framework for the parties to reach mutual agreement, the mediator won't be giving any outcome or advising the parties on what to do (they can "sneak" ideas in people's minds, however).

Basically, if the parties reach agreement then there's no need to litigate, however if there's no agreement then it's open slather. What was discussed at mediation stays at mediation and has not effect on what is discussed at trial

Mediation is a growing mechanism in the legal industry because (1) it's far cheaper than litigation, (2) the parties have some control and can decide the outcome, (3) the court process is favouring it as a prior Court option because the backlog in court dates is, well, long.

 

[bluepride]

A mediator isnt aloud to provie advice or opinion on the issue, he will just push the conversation alond and see if they can resolve it themselves.

A conciliator on the other hand, plays a more active role and gave give advice and help the parties out where he seems fit.

 

[jono25]

The mediator's job is to provide the framework for the parties to reach mutual agreement, the mediator won't be giving any outcome or advising the parties on what to do (they can "sneak" ideas in people's minds, however).

Basically, if the parties reach agreement then there's no need to litigate, however if there's no agreement then it's open slather. What was discussed at mediation stays at mediation and has not effect on what is discussed at trial

Mediation is a growing mechanism in the legal industry because (1) it's far cheaper than litigation, (2) the parties have some control and can decide the outcome, (3) the court process is favouring it as a prior Court option because the backlog in court dates is, well, long.

100% correct.

bluepride - a mediator will often give an opinion as to what they think the likely outcome of the proceedings will be it is just that the opinion of a mediator is not binding.

Whoever said it earlier is 100% correct - if your 27 your old mate tries to date a 17 year old you don't let him and put him in line. In my social circle no one would do that because it wouldn't be tolerated.

I also agree (though this is my morals) with whoever said get a gf and have a meaningful relationship rather than a different girl each night. People can do as they wish in my view but the best sex I have had has always been in a committed relationship (and the kinkiest).

 

[Yurj]

I'm not sure why there are references to a 27 yo male. Gilbert was 23 at the stage that J was 16 and, on his account, at the time she said she was 18. That's not much of a gap. It's an all too common experience for young males to find girls of their age are going out with blokes who are older than them and they can't compete financially with their rivals.

But if you're referring to other players who were 27, then carry on ...

The other thing I find odd is the suggestion that there's only one way of dealing with 16 or 17 year olds - apparently, they must always be humoured because they know not what they do. However, they aren't all the same. Some must be deterred and others must be given some latitude. The courts know this - some youths of 17 are jailed by Magistrates and others are given sentences that emphasise rehabilitation. The thing is that the AFL (20 meetings with a female investigations officer and former policewoman), St Kilda and Ricky Nixon have had a lot of contact with her over a number of months and have seen her behaviour develop over that time. They are much better equipped to decide the appropriate attitude than those who are armed only with her chronological age and potted accounts in the media and on the internet about her activities.

Finally, the suggestion that it will die out at the mediation doesn't take into account that she may not be the major target of litigation. It may well be that Channel 7 and the Hun may be, but to pursue them Gilbert and Riewoldt/NDS may have to add her as a defendant to the proceedings. Mediation may only be a perfunctory step on the way. However, if she pulls her head in she may find that she is practically irrelevant in the proceedings. If she continues to stick her head up, that might not be the case.

 

[Claypigeon]

There is ony one problem with this whole sort of thing. People, especially in modern times, are refusing more and more to accept responsibility. Our legal system allows teenagers to be exempt of any responsibilities and it's wrong. The women involved in the St. Kilda scandle is old enough to know what she is doing old enough to know the differnece between right and wrong yet our legal system is set up in such a way where she will not be seen responsible for her actions.

It's simple, you should be able to go out and have one night stands. Granted it should be with a person of legal age.

Men aren't going out there with clubs and belting women on the back of the head and dragging them back to their den by the ankles. Women are saying yes to doing this. If you have a one night stand and regret it, stiff shit. It's your fault it happened, your mistake and you should have to live with it. If you did it because you were drunk then that' no excese and should not be seen as an excuse, full stop. If you get drunk and make a bad decision like drive a car and kill someone then it's fully your fault just as it is if you get drunk and sleep with someone you wouldn't if sober. People are well aware of the risks of drinking alcohol irrisponsible and if they chose to do this, they should be made fulla accountable for any of their actions.

Our legal system must not become as bad as Americas where you can sue people for a mistake you made. We should all be made responsible for our actions reguardless of our opinions after.

Women like this do a lot of harm for women who have genuine cases of sexual assult.

While you do make good statements, don't forget that when there is an obvious imbalance of power then you can have perceived consensual sex that isn't. .. Example, a young girl finds herself in a room with three or more quite older guys, she could feel intimidated and bow to perceived pressure. .. That's an extreme case but you can get the same between two people where one has an obvious powerful position (young/under-age person and older mature/famous/stronger person). .. Its not always guys that get into this situation, women can too but its more likely that the male will be in the dominant position. .. Professional footballers are educated to avoid these situations for this very reason yet some still choose to ignore it. ..

The other problem is victim blaming. .. Sometimes the victim is stupid or taking a risk and has to take some responsibility. .. But to ignore the perpetrator because the victim contributed to the situation or even lay the blame on the victim is just plain wrong. ..

 

[40yearBLUE]

Fair call Yuri, but some of us are also armed with a disillusionment that is borne from watching the AFL and our institutions treat the issue poorly over and over all the while trying to protect their brand and hide the truth behind spin and worst of all protect the guilty.

Case after case after case the women get "handled" or "managed" while nothing happens to the fools that create the problem in the first place. Not just at AFL level but it starts there. In just the past 2 years there have been about 10 cases where narry a player was sanctioned in any way at all. In one case a group of suburban footy players allegedly r*ped 2 young girls and the charges were dropped. If there really was no case to answer and the girls were lying, and I was falsly accused of rape I would sue and want my day in court but no these cases just quietly went away. I say quietly, but I am sure the women or girls involved feel disquiet, and powerless.

Even the Fevola accusations. If there was nothing in the charge why then does the girl not face false accusation charges or Fev sue in civil court, god only knows he could use the money to pay his bookies. But no, he wont be suing because to do so the truth would come out in open court. Its a joke.

In fact the only player I can recall receiving any form of reproach is Lovett and he may yet be found not guilty by a system that finds the victims honor more questionable than the attackers.

Time after time after time.

If this was not the case many of us would have more criticism in store for this girl and her actions. Yes she was legal, but this entire episode as you have noted happened despite the league and the club meeting with her on numerous occasion. She clearly has issues but I doubt she has had anything that even remotely resembles the help she so clearly needs. Nixon is part of the problem not the solution. He and his ilk are a big part of the problem.

 

[Mister Carlton]

A mediator isnt aloud to provie advice or opinion on the issue, he will just push the conversation alond and see if they can resolve it themselves.

A conciliator on the other hand, plays a more active role and gave give advice and help the parties out where he seems fit.

Mediator facilitates the discussion, but has no active role. Conciliators have a more active role and can give advice, but both are not legally binding decisions by the third parties. Arbitration on the other hand, makes the legally binding decision.

 

[bluepride]

In just the past 2 years there have been about 10 cases where narry a player was sanctioned in any way at all. In one case a group of suburban footy players allegedly r*ped 2 young girls and the charges were dropped. If there really was no case to answer and the girls were lying, and I was falsly accused of rape I would sue and want my day in court but no these cases just quietly went away. I say quietly, but I am sure the women or girls involved feel disquiet, and powerless.

Tread very carefully, do you want to rethink what you just said.

I also hope your not implying that because the boys didnt sue there is more to it.

 

[40yearBLUE]

Tread very carefully, do you want to rethink what you just said.

I also hope your not implying that because the boys didnt sue there is more to it.

I have told you once already tonight pantsonfire, stop embarrassing yourself.

 

[bluepride]

.

Even the Fevola accusations. If there was nothing in the charge why then does the girl not face false accusation charges or Fev sue in civil court, god only knows he could use the money to pay his bookies. But no, he wont be suing because to do so the truth would come out in open court. Its a joke.

Nah Brisbane, didnt tell Fevola to leave the matter and not make it bigger and give the club more negative attention.

 

[bluepride]

I have told you once already tonight pantsonfire, stop embarrassing yourself.

Answer the bloody question.

What are you implying?

 

[40yearBLUE]

Answer the bloody question.

What are you implying?

Look fool, I doubt you understand half the words I used. They were spelled correctly and in the correct context. I refuse to debate someone that does not know the difference between aloud and allowed. And continually blames his iphone for his illiteracy.

 

[bluepride]

Look fool, I doubt you understand half the words I used. They were spelled correctly and in the correct context. I refuse to debate someone that does not know the difference between aloud and allowed. And continually blames his iphone for his illiteracy.

I want you to answer my question.

What are you implying in reference to that example?

 

[Claypigeon]

Fair call Yuri, but some of us are also armed with a disillusionment that is borne from watching the AFL and our institutions treat the issue poorly over and over all the while trying to protect their brand and hide the truth behind spin and worst of all protect the guilty.

Case after case after case the women get "handled" or "managed" while nothing happens to the fools that create the problem in the first place. Not just at AFL level but it starts there. In just the past 2 years there have been about 10 cases where narry a player was sanctioned in any way at all. In one case a group of suburban footy players allegedly r*ped 2 young girls and the charges were dropped. If there really was no case to answer and the girls were lying, and I was falsly accused of rape I would sue and want my day in court but no these cases just quietly went away. I say quietly, but I am sure the women or girls involved feel disquiet, and powerless.

Even the Fevola accusations. If there was nothing in the charge why then does the girl not face false accusation charges or Fev sue in civil court, god only knows he could use the money to pay his bookies. But no, he wont be suing because to do so the truth would come out in open court. Its a joke.

In fact the only player I can recall receiving any form of reproach is Lovett and he may yet be found not guilty by a system that finds the victims honor more questionable than the attackers.

Time after time after time.

If this was not the case many of us would have more criticism in store for this girl and her actions. Yes she was legal, but this entire episode as you have noted happened despite the league and the club meeting with her on numerous occasion. She clearly has issues but I doubt she has had anything that even remotely resembles the help she so clearly needs. Nixon is part of the problem not the solution. He and his ilk are a big part of the problem.

Sadly, quite often the perpetrators don't have the capacity nor the understanding to know that they've done something wrong. .. Ignorance however does not excuse it and is not a defence in law. .. A good lawyer and a lack of clear cut evidence is all these guys need. ..

 

[Yurj]

That's the sort of talk I don't like. Each case is separate. I don't agree at all with the notion that you can do justice by going after the innocent because the guilty got away with things in the past. Nothing in J's many versions supports any suggestion that she was abused or taken advantage of by Gilbert or anyone acting on his behalf, save for her discredited attempts to claim that she was groomed during a school clinic). In one of her versions, they had a relationship rather than simple sexual encounters (though I don't accept anything she says unless there is corroboration elsewhere).

I think Fevola has been lucky to avoid action. The Hun journo refused to give a statement and Bingle refused to meet the investigations officer saying stat decs should suffice when word-on-word disputes require an investigator to talk to witnesses in person. The latest allegation must have gone close to action, given that there was a 3 month investigation, but it was hardly a major case anyway.

The more troubling cases have been the ones where police action has undermined cases. In the case of "Kate's" allegations, evidence went missing and subsequently Overland apologised. Overland again noted that Fev should have been prosecuted in a timely manner for being drunk and disorderly on Brownlow night. And there were allegations from a detective that police officers had stolen evidence in an investigation into rape a couple of years back and had otherwise interfered in the investigations.

But the case of the suburban footballers doesn't help your case at all if it's the one that occurred in Phillip Island. The case was withdrawn in the middle of cross-examination in the committal. As the court is cleared during evidence by complainants, there's an air of mystery which might drive conspiracy theorists to conclude that there was something unseemly. The explanation is likely to be much more basic. The footballers had always claimed that the sexual activity was consensual and no wardrobes were used to imprison the complainant. It's likely that the cross-examination resulted in it becoming clear that the rape allegation wasn't true. Prosecutors usually don't withdraw that sort of charge unless the case is mortally wounded as they'd prefer the Magistrate or jury to be responsible for kicking the charges. The only other possibility is that the complainant refused to continue, but I must say that the news reports at the time left me with the impression that the prosecution case had gone up in smoke.

The failure of Fev or the suburban footballers to sue complainants is neither here nor there. Quite apart from the PR problems that would entail, there's a privilege which attaches to complaints to the police so defamation is not actionable. And malicious prosecution is very difficult to prove given that you have to prove other things apart from the falsity of the complaint - e.g. that proceedings terminated in favour of the player(s) (not merely that no charges were laid), and that the prosecution acted improperly.

Do you rejoice when a driver is beaten to a pulp by another driver who claims he was cut off? Will that teach the ones who cut you off a lesson? Do you rejoice when a man kills a woman, claiming that she cheated on him - will that give you some closure if you had been cheated on at some point in the past? If you don't like the behaviour of AFL players, wait for a better vehicle to express your disgust than a case in which Gilbert, Riewoldt and NDS have done nothing wrong.

 

[Claypigeon]

Do you rejoice when someone who cuts off another driver is beaten to a pulp? Will that teach the ones who cut you off a lesson? Do you rejoice when women who cheat are killed by their enraged husbands because you are angry at being cheated on at some point in the past? If you don't like the behaviour of AFL players, wait for a better vehicle to express your disgust than a case in which Gilbert, Riewoldt and NDS have done nothing wrong.

Its hard to understand who you are referring to with this "you". .. However I think this part is an example of what I'm talking about. .. Victim Blaming. .. Assault is unlawful and abhorant, at least to me, the driver, wife etc, are the victims (although the driver is guilty of a traffic offence, a vastly lesser crime tho) and the perpetrators disguntled driver, husband, etc. should be prosecuted, clearly. .. but that last part in bold is conjecture, we probably wont know clearly what happened to lead to all this so you making that statement is as bad as those that say they definitely did do something wrong. .. It doesn't change the fact that there is clearly bias within the law in regards to sports people and those with wealth/power and that people need to understand the rigours and issues surrounding consent. ..

 

[bluepride]

The failure of Fev or the suburban footballers to sue complainants is neither here nor there. Quite apart from the PR problems that would entail, there's a privilege which attaches to complaints to the police so defamation is not actionable.

It wont get through to him.

 

[Claypigeon]

it wont get through to me.

efa. ..

 

[Yurj]

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.

 

[Yurj]

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. This is about the photos, and not whatever happened between J and Gilbert. She hasn't ever complained about that - she has only ever whinged about it ceasing. It's up to those who would moralise to establish the facts and circumstances that they would condemn. They certainly can't raise the defence of immaturity to defend themselves.

 

[Blues_Man]

And on Gilbert's version, again he has nothing to do with it save for being the victim of theft.

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.

 

[blue gunslinger]

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

 

[GoBlues!]

If you don't like the behaviour of AFL players, wait for a better vehicle to express your disgust than a case in which Gilbert, Riewoldt and NDS have done nothing wrong.

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.

I think you are overlooking that Riewoldt wanted the photo taken of him to be deleted by Gilbert. The fact that Gilbert took and kept an inappropriate photo of Riewoldt against his express wishes means Gilbert has done something wrong and contributed to the situation.

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.

Agree. I think Gilbert could be made to look even more stupid than he is.

 

[Yurj]

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?