-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 14
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round 13 Winner: Boyd oh Boyd
Preview Round 10 Sat Night at Etihad Vs Saint Kilda
- Thread starter birdmanptr
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Gunston will be out of the side before Cook or Davis.
Symes in as a straight swap for Cook
Griff or SMACK in as a 2nd ruckman and Gunston to drop out
Griff or SMACK in as a 2nd ruckman and Gunston to drop out
I hope not, I think Etihad will suit the way the young lad plays. Has good touch.
In - Symes
Out - Petrenko
Still not up to AFL standard, panics and gets caught with the footy too often. Wont happen, is Craigs golden boy.
I think he's been poor for most of the season. However, I thought he showed signs on the weekend in the midfield. We know he can also play defence and we certainly may need him as a matchup on Milne, so I would not take him out. I would bring out Cook or Edwards for Symes.
I get the feeling we may see a breakout game from Pets very soon.
I have a strange feeling Porps could also have a good game.
- Banned
- #57
The scoreline will be like a soccer match, I predict 3-2 in crows favor.
- Banned
- #58
The players involved should be named, if they have nothing to hide then come out and set the story straight.
I'm sure you could tell us the average age of the players involved at least.
For all we know it could just be a 17-18 year old recruit that knocked up a 16 year old and this isn't even another rape case for saint kilda.
*edit* I'm not sure of the legal age in victoria to be considered statutory anyway.
There has been no suggestion that the sex was anything other than consensual. If the media's reporting is accurate, then the players would have a reasonable defence against charges of statutory rape, in that they genuinely believed that she was 18 years of age.
In all likelihood the only thing they really did wrong was not using protection. Their failure to do so is likely to land one of them with a paternal support bill until the child born of this union turns 18. It's certainly going to be a stressful time for these players, as they await the outcome of the police investigation and the DNA tests to determine the identity of the child's father.
In all likelihood the only thing they really did wrong was not using protection. Their failure to do so is likely to land one of them with a paternal support bill until the child born of this union turns 18. It's certainly going to be a stressful time for these players, as they await the outcome of the police investigation and the DNA tests to determine the identity of the child's father.
Uh, no. The age of sexual consent in Victoria is 18, with the proviso that 17 year-olds may have consensual sex with 16 year olds.
Can be even younger is you can prove you had grounds to believe she was 16 or older
0-10 no consent.
10-15 Must be within 2 years age different witj consent
16-17 no issues so long as the accused isn't a guardian/teacher
18+ **** away.
or
http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/745.htm
The only issue being they first made contact at a school clinic....now does that classify af someone giving supervision?
0-10 no consent.
10-15 Must be within 2 years age different witj consent
16-17 no issues so long as the accused isn't a guardian/teacher
18+ **** away.
or
http://www.legalaid.vic.gov.au/745.htm
The only issue being they first made contact at a school clinic....now does that classify af someone giving supervision?
That's the law for those under 16 (0-15). What's the law for those aged 16?
These are usually strict liability offences.
That is that the prosecution need only prove the act of thd crime not the intent.
However the defence of reasonable mistake of fact is still available as you originally asserted.
the funniest part is going to be waiting for the DNA tests to prove who the fathers is.
Even funnier if it ends up being a third party all together.
Even funnier if it ends up being a third party all together.
Saw that after I posted.
The more I read about this, the more I'm convinced it's a storm in a teacup. The boys should have used condoms and one of them is going to wear the consequences as a result. I can't see there being any legal (criminal) issues for them if the information released so far proves to be accurate.
I tend to agree, however there is the feeling in the back of my mind that doesn't easy with a person of influence and power sleeping with a 16/15 year old. It is alleged they met at a school footy clinic, which would make the players very much aware of her age.
I'm not sure if they should get charged or not, however I expect better, as it involves a minor.
As I understand it, she attended a footy clinic which the players were giving. The players have denied that they have any recollection of meeting her, which makes sense given the number of clinics they give each day and the number of kids attending each clinic. To them she'd be just one face amongst thousands.
There's no suggestion that anything happened as a result of the clinic, everything seems to have started after the R1 game against Sydney.
You are quite right, Wal E. My bad.
According to the newspaper article the players do not remember meeting her at the footy clinic. She told them she worked for the Institute of Sport in Canberra and that she was above the age of consent.
If that's all true, I feel sorry for the players, except that they were mugs not to use condoms.
According to the newspaper article the players do not remember meeting her at the footy clinic. She told them she worked for the Institute of Sport in Canberra and that she was above the age of consent.
If that's all true, I feel sorry for the players, except that they were mugs not to use condoms.
Similar threads
