Rumour Premiership Tiger star in trouble with the law - Nathan Broad named as The Photographer

[Bollox]

Broad needs to brush it off and forget about it as if it never happened.

Low brow crap like this just doesnt matter.

Get a few kicks and we'll forget about it too.

 

[Dusky]

Cheers Broady!

 

[ARES]

Meanwhile 1.3 billion people are living in extreme poverty and over 22,000 children die each day due to poverty.
One person commits suicide about every 40 seconds, one person is murdered every 60 seconds and one person dies in armed conflict every 100 seconds



Move on already...

 

[Lacustrus]

But you’d have to be a Grimey team mate to pass it on and get away scott free.

Worse than taking photos of the old fella and sending to blokes cherading as underage school girls?

 

[Aeons]

Worse than taking photos of the old fella and sending to blokes cherading as underage school girls?

Worse than bashing some bloke outside a kebab shop?....third offence and conviction...where is the trial by media over this one? Thats right..not a richmond player and not a red hot pc topic of the moment so nothing to see here...he won't even cop a club suspension! Talk about manifestly inadequate!

 

[Carson Dial]

Worse than bashing some bloke outside a kebab shop?....third offence and conviction...where is the trial by media over this one? Thats right..not a richmond player and not a red hot pc topic of the moment so nothing to see here...he won't even cop a club suspension! Talk about manifestly inadequate!

It was a spent conviction genius.. get your facts right

 

[Sterge]

I said 'could have' and he could have. Correct me if I'm wrong also but didn't the original pic show her face? Doubt there'd be any problem if she couldn't be identified and there doesn't have to be a sex act for it to be a criminal offence. He could have gone to jail. The provisions are there. It's quite clear the AFL doesn't think it's a big deal though. I'm only mildly surprised.

Where is this 'original pic' its a bit like oh i heard it from a mates mate.

Also yeah he could have gotten jail, but more likely a suspended sentence or a fine with no conviction.

He could have got a life ban from afl as well, but got 3 weeks and a loss of match payments. See how it works now?

 

[RudyBlue]

Yes.

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—
(a) A intentionally distributes an intimate image of another person (B) to a person other than B; and
(b) the distribution of the image is contrary to community standards of acceptable conduct.

Doesnt matter if you took the photo or not.

Where do you draw a line though? Thousands saw and distributed the picture

 

[Chief]

Where do you draw a line though? Thousands saw and distributed the picture

The line is usually drawn at resources. There aren’t enough to chase and prosecute everyone.

 

[Beerfish]

Where is this 'original pic' its a bit like oh i heard it from a mates mate.

Are you trying to say the picture never showed her face?

Also yeah he could have gotten jail, but more likely a suspended sentence or a fine with no conviction.

You've missed the point. I'm not saying he deserved it or would have got it. The point is it's considered a serious enough crime for there to be the provision in the law for prison time. It's a serious matter. A 3 week playing suspension trivialises what he did for many.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Are you trying to say the picture never showed her face?


You've missed the point. I'm not saying he deserved it or would have got it. The point is it's considered a serious enough crime for there to be the provision in the law for prison time. It's a serious matter. A 3 week playing suspension trivialises what he did for many.

Surely you are not naive enough to be unaware of the fact that the law applies itself harder to the downtrodden than to the privileged?

If he was a junkie from Frankston he would be in the nick right now.

 

[thegrach]

So it continues:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ment-is-incredibly-light-20171103-gze39c.html

Basically the guy argues that blokes can punch on and get off scott-free because the other party can fight back, but Broad should be hung from the highest yardarm in the land.

Now, to qualify this, I believe what Broad did was incredibly stupid and he probably got off lightly in my opinion, but the amount of one punch deaths that occur every year from stupid drunken altercations should mean that these offenses should not be compared at all.

 

[Beerfish]

Surely you are not naive enough to be unaware of the fact that the law applies itself harder to the downtrodden than to the privileged?

If he was a junkie from Frankston he would be in the nick right now.

I guess he's lucky they won the flag this year.

 

[Sterge]

Are you trying to say the picture never showed her face?


You've missed the point. I'm not saying he deserved it or would have got it. The point is it's considered a serious enough crime for there to be the provision in the law for prison time. It's a serious matter. A 3 week playing suspension trivialises what he did for many.

Im questioning if it exists out is it one of those urban legends? Why would someone go out of their way to crop the pic?

Yes there is jail for serious breaches people systematically setting out to destroy someone. This was not that.

 

[Snake_Baker]

I guess he's lucky they won the flag this year.

He's even luckier that he is an AFL footballer.

I don't think the Broad should be jailed, but this type of stuff is very un-chivalrous behavior and the bloke should be shamed on that count.

I suppose it's to be expected when kids watching morning television see women allow themselves to be lead around on chains with dog collars while some "rap" tool in a mink coat showers them in dollar bills. It's no wonder that materialistic skanky behaviour has come to the fore.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

She does have a nice pair of cans tho

 

[muzhogg]

Just tossing up the name of a legal firm is not "facts" to support your suspect statement that he admitted guilt early in the piece and she wanted to protect him.

No sale Teflon, but keep deflectin'

Helen Wheels is right on both those claims. That Broad admitted guilt early, and that the girl wanted his name kept out of it because she was worried it would lead to her identification were reported by Caroline Wilson a week or so ago:

Fairfax Media was warned by her legal team Maurice Blackburn against naming Broad when the story first broke and again last week, saying they feared for her well being. They still do.

And...

Broad in fact had admitted very early in the piece to the club - in the week that followed the Grand Final - that he was guilty as accused and according to the Tigers remorseful.

 

[Docker Alyssa]

Am I getting this right... A woman over the age of 18 who had this photo taken (she put herself in that situation, adults are responsible for their actions) is being given special treatment in the investigation, because, vagina(?), from any responsibility or public scrutiny; yet simultaneously everyone thinks the player being given equal privacy from being named would be a bad look? What kind of stupid metric is that?

 

[Chief]

So it continues:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...ment-is-incredibly-light-20171103-gze39c.html

Basically the guy argues that blokes can punch on and get off scott-free because the other party can fight back, but Broad should be hung from the highest yardarm in the land.

Now, to qualify this, I believe what Broad did was incredibly stupid and he probably got off lightly in my opinion, but the amount of one punch deaths that occur every year from stupid drunken altercations should mean that these offenses should not be compared at all.

There was no suggestion that Broad should be hung from the highest yardarm, or anything that metaphor represents.


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[Aeons]

Worse than bashing some bloke outside a kebab shop?....third offence and conviction...where is the trial by media over this one? Thats right..not a richmond player and not a red hot pc topic of the moment so nothing to see here...he won't even cop a club suspensi! Talk about

It is still a conviction...my point is if the afl are serious about making a stand against any sort of violence he still should face a club and or afl sanction of some type. However because it is not sensational enough to sell newspapers Gil and his cohort will turn a blind eye.

It was a spent conviction genius.. get your facts right

Fact... It is still a conviction. Fact...He has still been found guilty of assault. Fact...Still has priors. All pretty factual really. And I won't stoop to your level and insult your intelligence because the facts speak for themselves...

 

[Aeons]

I think this has been a very good lesson for all people using any form of communication platform that they have to be very careful what they post and share in the future especially if it is the intellectual property of someone else such as pictures of their person...

 

[Aeons]

Yes there is jail for serious breaches people systematically setting out to destroy someone. This was not that.[/QUOTE]


Good point Sterge. People seem to be missing this point that a jail sentence is usually reserved for cases of malicious intent. This article outlines it clearly in regards to the women who circulated the explicit pics of several afl players a few years ago.
https://www.mamamia.com.au/afl-nude-photo-scandal/
This raises another good point of why should Broad be held accountable by the law if other offenders (regardless of gender) were not charged previously despite similar circumstances? The article also states that the collingwood players were not sanctioned at all by the club or the Afl despite it being blatantly obvious that they violated the players code of conduct in this situation. Interesting to note that the author also highlights that it is considered an offence to view these images as well....

 

[Borussia Teeth]

She does have a nice pair of cans tho

I don't think this has ever been disputed!